Life in OUR America, Volume 2, The Livyjr Files Options

[Livyjr]

"Rove Taking a More Public Role - Bush Adviser Playing Messenger for Second-Term Agenda"

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page A01

He has risen to the highest ranks of the White House, carries the title of deputy chief of staff and presides over a broad portfolio of domestic and foreign issues.

But even as he has morphed from political operative to policy adviser, Karl Rove retains the instincts of the direct-mail specialist he once was in Texas.

"I don't think anybody knows yet [whether] what he said the other night is a mistake," said Tad Devine, who was a top strategist in Kerry's campaign.

"I will say it is calculated and deliberate."

"Karl for a long time has tried to position the Democrats as liberals, and liberals as weak, who don't want to defend America."

"Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

1 hour, 1 minute ago

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.

The assessment comes on the heels of the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll showing public doubts about the war reaching a high point — with more than half saying that invading Iraq was a mistake.

The top U.S. commander in the Middle East appealed for public support of the soldiers and their mission.

"We don't need to fight this war looking over our shoulder worrying about the support back home," Gen. John Abizaid told CNN's "Late Edition."

In a deadly week for U.S. forces, an ambush on a convoy carrying female troops killed four Marines, including at least one woman.

At least 1,735 members of the U.S. military have died since the war started in March 2003, according to an AP count.

On Sunday, bombings in Mosul and elsewhere in Iraq killed at least 38 people.

Rumsfeld, making the rounds of the Sunday talk shows, said insurgents want to disrupt the democratic transformation as Iraqi leaders draft a constitution and plan for elections in December to choose a full-term government.

"I would anticipate you're going to see an escalation of violence between now and the December elections," the Pentagon chief told NBC's "Meet the Press."

And after then, it will take a long time to drive out insurgents.

"Insurgencies tend to go on five, six, eight, 10, 12 years," Rumsfeld said on "Fox News Sunday."

"Coalition forces, foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency."

"We're going to create an environment that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency," he said.

A British newspaper reported Sunday that American officials recently met secretly with Iraqi insurgent commanders north of Baghdad to try to negotiate an end to the bloodshed.

Speaking generally, Rumsfeld said those kind of meetings "go on all the time" and that Iraqis "will decide what their relationships with various elements of insurgents will be."

"We facilitate those from time to time."

Abizaid said U.S. and Iraqi officials "are looking for the right people in the Sunni community to talk to ... and clearly we know that the vast majority of the insurgents are from the Sunni Arab community."

"It makes sense to talk to them."

Echoing Rumsfeld, Abizaid made clear that "we're not going to compromise" with Iraq's most-wanted terrorist, Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

The contacts, the Pentagon leaders said, were intended to make it easier for the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunnis.

The strength of the violent opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since the invasion in March 2003 has raised questions about whether the Bush administration understood that such a sustained reaction was possible.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., stressed that he and other critics of Bush's Iraq policy are determined to show their support for American soldiers in Iraq.

At the same time, "we're also determined to be constructive critics of the policies which not only sent them there, as unequipped, and without international support, and without plans for the aftermath," he said.

Before the war, Vice President Dick Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed from Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators.

Rumsfeld said Sunday he gave President Bush a list of about 15 things "that could go terribly, terribly wrong before the war started."

He said they included Iraq's oil wells being set on fire; mass refugees and relocations; blown-up bridges; and a moat of oil around Baghdad, the capital.

"So a great many of the bad things that could have happened did not happen," Rumsfeld said.

Asked if his list included the possibility of such a strong insurgency, Rumsfeld said: "I don't remember whether that was on there, but certainly it was discussed."

Rumsfeld said Iraq's security forces have gained respect among Iraqis.

He suggested insurgents' ability to kill in large numbers did not indicate a decline in public support for efforts by the U.S. and Iraqi governments, or that political, economic and security progress has been lacking.

"It doesn't take a genius to go blow up a restaurant or attack a police station, a suicide bomber."

"You can kill — a kid with a suicide vest can kill a lot of people," Rumsfeld said.

"Does that mean that the population is 'going south' and there's no plan and no progress?"

"No, it doesn't mean that at all," he said.

Rumsfeld defended Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their strength.

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

Violence may escalate, he said, because insurgents "have so much to lose between now and December," he said.

With some lawmakers urging the president to set a timetable for bringing U.S. troops home, Abizaid said Americans "need to be patient."

In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Abizaid said, each country's security forces will take on more of the burden as they become more capable.

He predicted that Iraqi security forces would take the lead in fighting insurgents by next spring or summer.

"That doesn't mean that I'm saying we'll come home by then," Abizaid told CBS' "Face the Nation."

"We'll have to judge how they're doing, how the political process is, how the situation is abroad," he added.

[Livyjr]

"Lobbyist May Have Cost Tribe Millions"

By ADAM NOSSITER, Associated Press Writer

Wed Jun 22,10:28 AM ET

ELTON, La. - Though far removed from Washington, the Coushatta Indian tribe quickly learned the cost of influence in the Capitol:

"Wire all funds."

"Professional Services, $3,405,000.00," one of the tribe's lobbyists, now under investigation, wrote the Coushattas in 2002.

Other invoices such as this one from Michael Scanlon, a business partner of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, carry similar commands for large sums."

Before it was all over the tribe had spent $32 million of its casino profits on a lobbying effort that many now question as exorbitant, and tribal members had ousted their leadership.

Along the way, Abramoff directed the tribe to make tens of thousands of donations and once directed tribal leaders to cancel $55,000 in checks to House Republican leader Tom DeLay and divert them to other groups.

"Lobbyists, Clients Undeterred by Scandal - Alumni of Abramoff's 'Team' Still Collecting Fees, Trying to Influence Government"

By James V. Grimaldi
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page A05

Lobbyist Kevin A. Ring sat silently as Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) displayed e-mails and canceled checks to support allegations that Ring and lobbyist Jack Abramoff inflated fees and concocted invoices to defraud their client, the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians.

Testifying before the committee Wednesday morning, Ring asserted his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, but he also offered an apology.

"I'm sorry the clients for whom I worked have had to endure the enormous emotional and financial burden," he said.

The terse statement omitted an intriguing fact: Ring is still working for the Choctaws as their paid Washington lobbyist.

Indeed, he was actively lobbying members of Congress to pass a Choctaw-backed amendment that came up for a vote in the House on Friday afternoon.

Ring is one of more than a dozen lobbyists who were members of "Team Abramoff," the tight-knit group who worked under Abramoff when he was at the lobbying helm of the Washington office of Greenberg Traurig LLP and, before that, Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP.

Members of that influence dream-team continue to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars as registered lobbyists, often lobbying for former Abramoff clients -- unimpeded by the taint of scandal and revelations of suspicious deal-making in the brash and sometimes salty e-mails exchanged with Abramoff.

Along with Neil G. Volz and Edward P. Ayoob, Ring left Greenberg Traurig and went to work for Barnes & Thornburg LLP.

Shawn Vasell, who like Ring asserted Fifth Amendment rights Wednesday, now works in the Washington office of Hewlett-Packard.

Other former Team Abramoff members include Todd A. Boulanger, who handles as many as eight client accounts at Cassidy & Associates Inc., including Abramoff's former client, the Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana; and Tony C. Rudy, who represents as many as a dozen clients at the Alexander Strategy Group.

Ring is one of the few Abramoff alumni who have been able to hold onto the same tribal clients who now say they were victimized by Abramoff's fraudulent billing practices.

A federal task force is investigating those practices.

Abramoff's spokesman, Andrew Blum, said his client could not comment while under investigation.

"It is a story of betrayal," testified Choctaw executive Nell Rogers, who sat at the same witness table as Ring.

Choctaw officials and their lawyer did not return several phone calls Thursday and Friday seeking comment for this article.

Deemed too radioactive to represent clients without causing embarrassment, Abramoff, along with his onetime business partner, Michael Scanlon, have largely been forced to give up their lobbying and public affairs practices.

But most of their former associates still pound the halls of Congress for well-heeled clients.

The Indian affairs committee, during the third hearing into lobbying practices, released a fresh batch of e-mail among Abramoff and his team members.

Documents show the laundering of money through nonprofit groups, a phony Christian grass-roots effort and attempts to pump up and doctor invoices sent to tribes.

Rudy, a former top aide to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), wrote Abramoff in 2001 that Senate staffers wanted $10,000 to pay for a trip to "reward" them for getting a specific appropriation for the Choctaws.

There is a hunting and fishing resort 3 hours south of texas that smith's people expressed an interest in," Rudy wrote on Sept. 21, 2001.

It is unclear who "smith's people" are.

Abramoff said he did not think he could justify the trip, and Rudy said it would be a "thank you trip for the approps we got."

Said Abramoff, "Smith's people didn't get us the approps for Choctaw, but good try!"

The issue was not resolved in the e-mail chain because Abramoff said they would "discuss next week."

Rudy could not be reached, but in the past has declined to comment while the matter is under investigation.

E-mail shows some Team Abramoff members were alarmed at some of the practices.

In an e-mail to Rudy, Boulanger raised suspicions about a request to clients to contribute $25,000 to the Capital Athletic Foundation, a charity created by Abramoff and used to pay for a trip of a member of Congress and for a sniper school in the Israeli-controlled West Bank.

"What is it?"

"I've never heard of it," Boulanger wrote June 20, 2002.

"It is something our friends are raising money for," Rudy replied.

"I'm sensing shadiness," Boulanger said.

"I'll stop asking."

When Rudy forwarded Boulanger's suspicions, Abramoff responded with an expletive.

"I did not want you to bring Todd into this!!!"

Boulanger declined to comment Friday.

Vasell also expressed dismay.

In June 2001, he e-mailed Abramoff about preparing a bill for the Choctaws.

"The bill is a disaster (again)," Vasell wrote, ". . . people's entries compared to time inputted and work performed is a joke."

Abramoff asked about the bill's total, and Vasell replied $120,000.

Abramoff asked Vasell to "tell me how much you need me to cover to get the bill up to around $150k."

Vasell replied, "This is a very bad system that I am very uncomfortable with."

On another occasion, an Abramoff aide, whose name was redacted in the released e-mail, wrote to Abramoff about making up justifications for time billed to Choctaws.

"I'm creatively entering your July and August time in now (with the help of some great language that Shawn [Vasell] and Kevin [Ring] have provided)."

The committee also released documents showing cash flowing in and out of a limited liability corporation called KAR LLC that was based at Ring's Maryland home.

The corporation received a check for $25,000 on Dec. 15, 2003, from Grassroots Interactive LLC, a company apparently controlled by Abramoff.

In mid-February 2004, a few weeks before the Abramoff-tribal money scandal broke, Abramoff and Ring agreed to a wide-ranging interview with The Washington Post.

Shortly afterward, Ring returned the $25,000 to Grassroots Interactive.

Ring's corporation also received $125,000 in the spring of 2002 from Scanlon's public affairs firm, Capital Campaign Strategies.

The notation on one check cited a "referral expense."

McCain said Wednesday the money appeared to have come from the Pueblo of Sandia Tribe of New Mexico.

"What services benefiting the Pueblo Sandia did you provide for that $125,000?" McCain asked Ring, before answering his own question.

"In fact, you didn't provide any services, according to the information that we have."

McCain also questioned Ring about an e-mail he sent Abramoff asking for "some help from a client to subsidize me joining a club."

Ring said he needed $800 for the initiation fee at the exclusive University Club in Northwest Washington.

After Abramoff offered to pay the tab, Ring said, "Really?"

"There is no way to bury this in Choctaw or SGMA [another client] bill?"

McCain asked Ring for an explanation.

"I respectfully invoke my constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment," Ring said.

Another intriguing, but cryptic, e-mail exchange between Abramoff and Ring seems to be about billing.

The subject line reads "Choctaw" and the e-mail refers to GT, or Greenberg Traurig.

Ring: "How much does GT bread cost Choctaw?"

"$1.50 per loaf plus or minus a few cents."

"This loaf cost $1.19 and I was wondering if I should increase price or leave as is."

"Know what I mean?"

Abramoff: "The loaf should cost no less than $1.50."

When Ring left Greenberg Traurig for Barnes & Thornburg a few months ago, he brought many former Abramoff clients, including the International Interactive Alliance, the Gibraltar-based group that advocates for gambling on the Internet.

Money from the International Interactive Alliance was the subject of another unusual flow of cash.

In 2003, the alliance gave $1.5 million to Greenberg Traurig, which then gave it to a nonprofit group, which then gave it to Kaygold LLC, a company controlled by Abramoff, congressional records and testimony show.

For the Choctaws, Ring has tried to win support for an amendment by Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-Ariz.) that would exempt tribal casinos from labor laws on the grounds that the tribes are sovereign governments.

Hayworth has a long relationship with Team Abramoff.

He used sports skyboxes that Abramoff charged to clients from 1999 to 2001 but failed to report the use to the Federal Election Commission until late last year, after publicity about the federal investigation of Abramoff.

Hayworth's amended reports show his campaign fund reimbursed two Abramoff clients -- the Choctaw and Chitimacha -- $12,880 for using the sports suites five times.

According to records obtained by The Post, Ring last month coordinated with Hayworth's office on a letter to members of Congress from Choctaw Chief Phillip Martin seeking support for the tribal labor amendment.

The amendment to the Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services appropriations bill was defeated Friday, 256 to 146.

Research editor Lucy Shackelford, researcher Alice Crites and database editor Derek Willis contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Rumsfeld: Insurgency Could Last for Years"

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Sunday he is bracing for even more violence in Iraq and acknowledged that the insurgency "could go on for any number of years."

Defeating the insurgency may take as long as 12 years, he said, with Iraqi security forces, not U.S. and foreign troops, taking the lead and finishing the job.

The strength of the violent opposition to the U.S.-led coalition since the invasion in March 2003 has raised questions about whether the Bush administration understood that such a sustained reaction was possible.

Before the war, Vice President Dick Cheney predicted that Iraqis freed from Saddam Hussein's rule would greet American troops as liberators.

Rumsfeld defended Cheney's recent statement that the insurgents are in their "last throes," saying there are many ways to measure their strength.

"If you look up 'last throes,' it can mean a violent last throe," Rumsfeld said on ABC's "This Week."

"Violence rages; U.S. copter goes down - No word on any casualties; at least 33 killed in 3 bombings in Mosul"

June 26: A series of major attacks killed dozens of Iraqis on Sunday as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it could take up to 12 more years to complete the mission.

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:21 a.m. ET June 27, 2005

MISHAHDA, Iraq - A U.S. military helicopter carrying two pilots crashed north of Baghdad on Monday, a day after a spate of suicide attacks left nearly three dozen people dead in northern Iraq.

Meantime, a roadside bomb in Baghdad exploded near a police patrol at Antar Square in the capital’s northern Azamiyah neighborhood, police 1st Lt. Mohammed al-Hayali said.

Two people were killed, he said.

The AH-64 Apache helicopter crashed in Mishahda, 20 miles north of the capital, an Associated Press reporter at the scene said.

The helicopter was in flames on the ground.

There were no immediate reports of casualties.

“We had a helicopter crash northwest of Taji,” Lieutenant Colonel Cliff Kent, spokesman for the 3rd Infantry Division said, referring to a major airbase north of Baghdad.

Local people said they saw two helicopters circling before one crashed out of the sky just north of Baghdad.

“I saw a missile hit one of the helicopters and black smoke come from it before it went down,” said one man, who gave his name as Abu Mustafa.

The U.S. statement did not say what had caused the crash.

Relentless carnage

The attack followed three suicide bombers who struck a police headquarters, an army base and a hospital around Mosul on Sunday, killing 33 people in a setback to efforts to rebuild the northern city’s police force that was riven by intimidation from insurgents seven months ago.

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the attacks in Mosul — the country’s third-largest city.

The claim, which was made on an Internet site used by militants, could not be verified.

The relentless carnage has killed at least 1,338 people since April 28, when Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his Shiite-dominated government.

With the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency targeting the Shiite majority, the wave of killings has raised fears of a possible civil war.

The violence has continued despite repeated crackdowns and U.S.-led offensives on insurgent strongholds throughout the country, showing that militants have the depth and resilience to pin down a large U.S. military contingent as well as a fledgling Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents.

He said Iraq’s security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then.

Rumsfeld also acknowledged that U.S. officials have met with insurgents in Iraq, after a British newspaper reported that two recent meetings took place at a villa north of Baghdad.

Insurgent commanders “apparently came face to face” with four American officials during meetings on June 3 and June 13 at a villa near Balad, about 25 miles north of Baghdad, The Sunday Times reported.

When asked Sunday on NBC television’s “Meet the Press” about the report of the two meetings, Rumsfeld said, “I think there have probably been many more than that.”

He insisted the talks did not involve negotiations with al-Zarqawi and other suspected terrorists, but were rather facilitating efforts by the Shiite-led government to reach out to minority Sunni Arabs.

Three insurgent groups denied that any meetings had taken place.

At least 18 other people were killed in attacks elsewhere in Iraq on Sunday, including a U.S. soldier whose convoy was hit by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and six Iraqi soldiers who were gunned down outside their base north of the capital.

On Monday, Iraqi police detained 48 suspected insurgents in Iskandriyah, Jibbala and Haswa in northern Hillah, police Capt. Muthana Khalid said.

The three-day raid, which ended early Monday, took place in an area south of Baghdad, part of “Operation Lightning.”

Police also seized weapons and a potential car bomb.

Mosul carnage

The attacks in Mosul, 225 miles northwest of Baghdad, started early Sunday when a suicide bomber with explosives hidden beneath watermelons in a pickup truck slammed into a downtown police station near a market.

U.S. Army Capt. Mark Walter said 10 policemen and two civilians were killed.

Less than two hours later, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the parking lot of an Iraqi army base on Mosul’s outskirts, killing 16 people, Walter said.

Most of the victims were civilian workers arriving at the site, he said.

A third attacker strapped with explosives walked into Mosul’s Jumhouri Teaching Hospital in the afternoon and blew himself up in a room used by police guarding the facility, killing five policemen.

An Associated Press reporter was outside the hospital when the explosion occurred.

It blew a hole in a side of the building and injured some police officers outside.

Smoke then began pouring out of the hole, followed by flames.

Sitting on the banks of the Tigris River, Mosul is a religious and ethnic mosaic that some see as a microcosm of Iraq.

Some of Iraq’s most feared terror groups — including the Ansar al-Sunnah Army and al-Qaida in Iraq — operate in the city.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Violence rages; U.S. copter goes down - No word on any casualties; at least 33 killed in 3 bombings in Mosul"

June 26: A series of major attacks killed dozens of Iraqis on Sunday as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said it could take up to 12 more years to complete the mission.

MSNBC News Services
Updated: 7:21 a.m. ET June 27, 2005

The violence has continued despite repeated crackdowns and U.S.-led offensives on insurgent strongholds throughout the country, showing that militants have the depth and resilience to pin down a large U.S. military contingent as well as a fledgling Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents.

He said Iraq’s security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then.

SO!

From what Donald Rumsfeld is saying here, it is quite obvious that George W. Bush HAS SET A TIMETABLE FOR WITHDRAWAL FROM IRAQ, and so, it would seem that once again, he is lying to us, the American people, about what is going on, IN OUR OWN NATION, IN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT!

This is the confidence that winning this last election in 2004 has given to George W. Bush and Karl Rove, that enough Americans will suck up the lies that they tell, like a sponge, without saying a word, or having a stray thought about being the respositories for a stack of lies, and so, now the lies come, seemingly non-stop!

Conversely, IF we don't have a timetable for withdrawal, then what is Donald Rumsfeld saying here, about being out of Iraq long before the violence has ended over there?

Is George W. Bush the liar, or is it Donald Rumsfeld, or is it the whole pack of them, down there in the "ten mile square" of Washington, D.C.?

[Livyjr]

"Violence rages; U.S. copter goes down - No word on any casualties; at least 33 killed in 3 bombings in Mosul"

The violence has continued despite repeated crackdowns and U.S.-led offensives on insurgent strongholds throughout the country, showing that militants have the depth and resilience to pin down a large U.S. military contingent as well as a fledgling Iraqi security forces.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, said it may take as long as 12 years to defeat the insurgents.

He said Iraq’s security forces will have to finish the job because American and foreign troops will have left the country by then.

"Hagel: 'We are losing in Iraq'"

By Katie Backman
kathryn.backman@theindependent.com
Publication Date: 06/26/05

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/0626...w_hagel26.shtml

A gap is developing between the troops in Iraq and American citizens and if this difference keeps growing, the war in Iraq could become similar to the Vietnam War, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Saturday.

Hagel, R-Neb., spoke at the convention of the American Legion Department of Nebraska in Grand Island.

His focus was how the perception and objectives of the war in Iraq need to change.

Hagel, a lifetime member of the American Legion, said he doesn't want to go back to the draft and thinks it won't happen.

The recruitment numbers are down, but he wants to avoid trying to attract people with a lot of incentives.

"Something's going to break," he said.

"And we are losing in Iraq."

The war in Iraq isn't exactly the same as the Vietnam War, Hagel said, but the level of American support is becoming comparable.

He said people feel like they aren't hearing the truth and some feel uncertain about the point of the war.

The president is losing support, he said, as too many people are concerned with ideology matters instead of what should be the focus -- peace.

"I know in life there is only one currency that matters and that's trust," Hagel said.

Initially, America went to war to stop Saddam Hussein, not terrorism, Hagel said.

Saddam was "brutal and bad," he said, and that kept terrorists out of Iraq.

But for trust to be regained, officials need to have a clear objective, he said.

New policies might fail, but White House officials need to keep working at them until one works.

The country needs more men and women fighting in Iraq, he said.

Most Legionnaires chose to fight, but now not enough people are volunteering to serve.

If the point of the war is clear, that would draw more people to military service, Hagel said.

Then there would be enough people to train Iraqi police and form a stable government with leaders.

The country can't be left as it is, Hagel said, or some people will consider the United States' efforts a loss.

If U.S. troops were withdrawn and the country was left without leadership, it would be more dangerous than it currently is, he said.

He expects to see more threats of weapons of mass destruction and terrorism.

Douglas Boldt, alternate national executive committeeman of the American Legion Department of Nebraska, said it was a privilege to listen to Hagel state his opinions.

He said many other Legion members also appreciated his speech and many support his opinions.

Boldt agreed with Hagel that this war is going down the same path as the Vietnam War.

"I like the way (Hagel) talks."

"He's very straightforward," Boldt said.

"He's an absolute pleasure to listen to."

Boldt said Hagel explains why he takes a position on an issue and tells people his stance.

Hagel said he wanted to come a speak to the veterans to explain his thoughts on the war and the reasons for his opinions.

He said he doesn't want to just stand by and watch young men and women risk their lives for an unclear war policy.

"We have time to make changes," he said.

"We cannot fail our troops."

Click here to return to story:

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/0626...w_hagel26.shtml

[Livyjr]

"Hagel: 'We are losing in Iraq'"

By Katie Backman
kathryn.backman@theindependent.com
Publication Date: 06/26/05

http://www.theindependent.com/stories/0626...w_hagel26.shtml

A gap is developing between the troops in Iraq and American citizens and if this difference keeps growing, the war in Iraq could become similar to the Vietnam War, Sen. Chuck Hagel said Saturday.

Hagel, R-Neb., spoke at the convention of the American Legion Department of Nebraska in Grand Island.

"And we are losing in Iraq."

The war in Iraq isn't exactly the same as the Vietnam War, Hagel said, but the level of American support is becoming comparable.

He said people feel like they aren't hearing the truth and some feel uncertain about the point of the war.

"I know in life there is only one currency that matters and that's trust," Hagel said.

Boldt agreed with Hagel that this war is going down the same path as the Vietnam War.

"I like the way (Hagel) talks."

"He's very straightforward," Boldt said.

Hagel: "Iraq could be worse than Vietnam"

by kos

Sun Jun 26th, 2005 at 14:55:37 PDT

Hagel, Republican senator from Nebraska, speaking to veterans back home.

"Hagel sounds alarm over Iraq"

BY JAKE THOMPSON
WORLD-HERALD STAFF WRITER

GRAND ISLAND, Neb. - More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq.

Sen. Chuck Hagel addresses more than 200 Nebraska American Legion members in Grand Island on Saturday.

It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:

The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis.

Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.

Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq.

Civil war is perilously close to erupting there.

Allies aren't helping much.

The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.

And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.

"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."

It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000 Americans.

This is an important story.

I've included the rest of it in the extended entry.

Failure in Iraq could lead to many more American deaths, disrupt U.S. oil supplies, damage the Middle East peace effort, spread terrorism and harm America's stature worldwide, Hagel said.

That's what keeps him on edge these days.

That's why he is again the most outspoken Republican in Congress about Iraq.

His view that America is losing in Iraq, which first aired in a newsmagazine last week, prompted rebukes from conservatives such as talk show host Rush Limbaugh, concerns from others in his party and praise from anti-war advocates on the Internet.

But Saturday, he was unrepentant.

"The point is, we're going to have to make some changes or we will lose, we will lose in Iraq," he told the legionnaires.

At the same time, he said, he wants President Bush to win, and he believes that the United States cannot pull out anytime soon.

The legionnaires gave him a standing ovation at the end of his speech.

Carl Marks of Omaha, a Korean War veteran, said: "It sounds like he's conflicted . . . like a lot of us."

Bennie Navratil of Hallam, Neb., whose son left last week for military duty in Afghanistan, said, "I feel he said the right thing: that we can't pull out and something's got to change."

Aboard a plane back to Omaha, Hagel was asked whether he thought Bush was aware that adjustments might be needed in his Iraq policy.

"I don't know," Hagel said.

The whole Iraqi situation makes him sick to his stomach, he said.

"It has tormented me, torn me more than any one thing," he said with a grim look on his face.

"To see what these guys in Iraq are having to go through and knowing what I know here: that we didn't prepare for it, we didn't understand what we were getting into."

"And to put those guys in those positions, it makes me so angry."

He lays part of the blame on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who argued before the war that he needed only 150,000 American troops in Iraq.

That caused more casualties than were needed, Hagel said.

"We still don't have enough troops," he said.

"We should have had double or triple the number."

It has led to a bleak situation, Hagel said:

Insurgent attacks are more frequent than a year ago.

Bombs used by insurgents are growing more deadly, piercing America's best protective clothing and equipment.

Oil production is down.

Electricity is less available than a year ago.

Economic development is lagging.

Ninety percent of the humanitarian and economic aid pledged by 60 nations hasn't reached Iraq because of the continuing violence.

Only one Middle Eastern country has an ambassador in Iraq.

Bush has said America is fighting in Iraq with a "coalition of the willing," allies who have committed a relatively small number of troops and aid.

Hagel scoffed at that idea.

"It's a joke to say there's a coalition of the willing," he said, adding that many are pulling out and the United States is fronting the bills for those who remain.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops are under severe strain.

Troops are stationed in more than 100 countries, and their rapid tempo of deployments with little time off leaves them fatigued and in danger of making mistakes.

"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said.

"We're stretching our Army to the breaking point."

Public pronouncements from the Bush administration also have gotten under Hagel's skin.

Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments that the insurgents in Iraq are in "the last throes" echo a refrain of the Vietnam era, he said.

Back then, officials saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, Hagel said.

Toting up all those points, he said, leads him to conclude that the United States is losing in Iraq.

"That doesn't mean we have to lose," he said.

In his speech and in an interview, Hagel offered some ideas that he thinks could help in Iraq:

U.S. troops and others could work harder to train local militias in small Iraqi towns to help identify and take on insurgents.

Allies who don't want to enter Iraq could help patrol its borders, blocking terrorists from entering the war-torn country.

The training of Iraq's military and military police should be accelerated immediately.

Middle Eastern nations should become more engaged, he said, but it doesn't help when administration officials criticize Egypt and Saudi Arabia for not moving quickly enough toward democratic practices.

Hagel said he shaped his views after many talks recently with senior U.S. military officials; foreign policy experts; Brent Scowcroft, who was the first President Bush's national security adviser; and others.

He plans to share his views with the current president and his team and says he feels an urgency he hopes they will share.

The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said.

"I believe that there can be a good outcome in Iraq," he said.

"I also believe there could be a very bad outcome for Iraq. I believe we have a very limited time for that good outcome."

[Livyjr]

And while we are on this topic of TAY-RIZM, here in this world of OURS, this next story is a troubling one, as it is being hinted that somehow, just somehow, this al-Zarqawi fellow that is the TAY-RIST king of Iraq, well, they think this bear in this story was really one of his "sleeper cells" that was "activated", and that al-Zarqawi, who is in his "last throes", is now going to unleash these TAY-RIST bears of his on us, in waves!

I almost said "human waves", there, but since these are bears, well .....

"Grizzly kills couple at Alaska campsite - Authorities kill bear after ‘predatory act’ in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge"

Updated: 4:15 a.m. ET June 27, 2005

ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Two people camping along the Hulahula River in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were killed by a grizzly bear, officials said Sunday.

Officials discovered the bodies and an unused firearm in a tent Saturday at a campsite near the river.

They also shot and killed the animal.

The couple, whose names were not released, was believed to be in their late 50s or early 60s, North Slope Borough police said.

They were from Anchorage and had been on a recreational rafting trip down the river, Alaska State Troopers said.

The victims were in their tent when the attack occurred, according to Tim DeSpain, spokesman for Alaska State Troopers.

The campsite was clean, with food stored in bear-proof containers.

“The initial scene indicates that it was a predatory act by the bear,” DeSpain said.

A rafter had seen the animal at the site and notified authorities.

The couple’s injuries were consistent with a bear attack and there were no signs of foul play, said Kelly Alzaharna, a lieutenant with the North Slope Borough Police Department.

There were no other people at the campsite, which was about 12 miles up river from Kaktovik, a community of about 300 on Barter Island and the only village in the refuge.

Officials are not sure when the couple was killed.

end quotes

An unused firearm was found at the site!

Now, there is the "evil mastermind" of this al-Zarqawi at work, here, all right.

If he had some of his Arabs trying to infilatrate Alaska, well, let's face it, they would stand out like sore thumbs, but a bear?

Who will suspect a bear in Alaska of really being a TAY-RIST, and so, they are the perfect dupes for this al-Zarqawi to prey on to do his dirty work for him, and look how well it worked here!

That bear got right on in there, unsuspected, because no one thinks a bear will ever be un-American; after all, just look at Smokey, if you don't believe me ......

[Livyjr]

And that poor George W. Bush, well, if he ain't got it coming out one end, it's coming out the other, for him, anyway, what with these TAY-RIST bears, up there in Alaska, and the perversion in GITMO ....

"Former Guantanamo prisoners freed by Pakistan allege abuse of Koran"

Mon Jun 27,10:21 AM ET

LAHORE, Pakistan (AFP) - Seventeen former prisoners at Guantanamo Bay who were detained on their return home to Pakistan were freed, with many alleging they had witnessed the desecration of the Koran at the US jail.

The men came back to Pakistan around nine months ago after being cleared by US authorities.

They were finally released from a Pakistani jail after promising not to take part in militant activities.

"American soldiers have been committing desecration of the holy Koran at Guantanamo," Haifz Ehsan Saeed, 27, told AFP as he emerged from the central jail in the city of Lahore.

"There were various incidents."

"Once I saw them throw the Koran in a bucket full of urine and faeces," he said.

Saeed said he was arrested four years ago in Afghanistan on charges of having links with the Al-Qaeda terror network.

He was kept in a jail run by brutal Afghan warlord Abdul Rashid Dostam and then shifted to Guantanamo.

"The Americans declared me innocent but yet I have been in prison for about nine months in Rawalpindi and Lahore after being released from Guantanamo Bay," he said.

"I am not ashamed because I have not done any wrong act," Saeed added.

Another freed prisoner, 25-year-old Muhammad Hanif, said he was tortured and his beard was forcibly shaved by the US troops at the military jail in Cuba.

"The Americans removed our beards and have been spitting over the holy book," Hanif told AFP.

The inmates at Guantanamo Bay protested at the abuse of the Islamic holy book and went on hunger strikes, he said.

A Pakistani official said the men had been released on the orders of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

"We have released 17 prisoners after their parents and guardians furnished guarantees that they would not indulge in terrorist activities," said Tahir Ashrafi, the provincial government's advisor on religious affairs.

Musharraf earlier this month condemned the desecration of the Koran as an "unpardonable" act and backed calls for the punishment of those found guilty.

Frequent protest rallies were held in Pakistan after a report in Newsweek magazine in early May said Guantanamo Bay interrogators threw a Koran in a toilet to rattle Muslim inmates.

Newsweek later retracted the story.

The US Defense Department, announcing the result of an investigation this month, said that overall US soldiers at the camp handled the Islamic holy book with respect.

But it said military personnel at Guantanamo Bay once kicked the Koran and a copy was sprayed with urine in another incident.

[Livyjr]

And that poor George W. Bush, well, if he ain't got it coming out one end, it's coming out the other, for him, anyway, what with these TAY-RIST bears, up there in Alaska, and the perversion in GITMO ....

And not only does this TAY-RIST mastermind al-Zarqawi now allegedly have "sleeper cells" of TAY-RIST bears infiltrated from one end of Alaska to the other, with the aid of the LIBERALS in Canada, some are alleging anyway, like Rush Limbaugh, I think, "they" say, and you know how "they" are, that he has also made a deal with the sharks of the sea .....

"Shark Attacks 2nd Teen Off Fla. Panhandle"

By BILL KACZOR, Associated Press Writer

26 minutes ago

PENSACOLA, Fla. - A teenage boy was bitten and critically injured Monday in the second shark attack in three days along the Florida Panhandle.

The boy, whose age and name were not released, was taken to Bay Medical Center in Panama City.

The nature of his injuries was not immediately released, but he underwent surgery and his condition stabilized, hospital spokeswoman Christa Hild said.

"That means he's going to be OK," she said.

The boy was attacked off Cape San Blas, a popular vacation destination about 80 miles southeast of the Destin area, where 14-year-old Jamie Marie Daigle of Gonzales, La., was killed by a shark on Saturday.

Daigle had been swimming on a boogie board with a friend about 100 yards from shore when a shark tore away the flesh on one leg from her hip to her knee.

Erich Ritter of the Shark Attack Institute said the girl was probably attacked by a 6-foot bull shark, based on measurements of the bite wound.

He said it was unlikely the same shark was responsible for Monday's attack.

After Saturday's attack, a 20-mile stretch of shore was closed to swimmers, but beaches reopened Sunday with a double staff of sheriff's beach patrol officers.

On Monday, off-duty deputies were called in to beef up beach patrols and watch for sharks from the air and the water.

Florida averaged more than 30 shark attacks a year from 2000 to 2003, but there were only 12 attacks off the state's coast last year, according to figures compiled by the American Elasmobranch Society and the Florida Museum of Natural History.
___

On the Net:

International Shark Attack File: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/ISAF/ISAF.htm

[Livyjr]

And that poor George W. Bush, well, if he ain't got it coming out one end, it's coming out the other, for him, anyway, what with these TAY-RIST bears, up there in Alaska, and the perversion in GITMO ....

"Former Guantanamo prisoners freed by Pakistan allege abuse of Koran"

Mon Jun 27,10:21 AM ET

Musharraf earlier this month condemned the desecration of the Koran as an "unpardonable" act and backed calls for the punishment of those found guilty.

Uh, what about this, then Pervez?

"Rape victim takes case to Pakistan's Supreme Court"

By Zeeshan Haider
Mon Jun 27, 6:14 AM ET

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A Pakistani woman gang raped in 2002 on the orders of a village council said on Monday she hoped the country's Supreme Court would reimpose death sentences on the men who attacked her.

The Supreme Court began hearing an appeal by the woman, Mukhtaran Mai, against the acquittal of five of six men convicted in the assault.

"I expect the same decision as was given by the special court," Mai told reporters in the Supreme Court before the session began, referring to the conviction of the men.

Six men were originally convicted of the crime and sentenced to death, but five were later acquitted after appealing to a high court in Punjab province, which cited a lack of evidence.

A sixth had his death sentence commuted to life imprisonment.

Mai, 33, was gang-raped on the orders of a traditional village council after her brother -- who was 12 at the time -- was judged to have offended the honor of a powerful clan by befriending a woman from the tribe.

Feudal and tribal laws still hold sway in many rural parts of predominantly Muslim Pakistan.

The rape provoked a national outcry and focused international attention on the treatment of women in rural Pakistan.

The Supreme Court in the capital, Islamabad, was crowded with Mai's supporters including members of non-governmental organizations.

Several foreigners were also in attendance.

Clad in traditional shalwar kameez baggy shirt and trousers and with a pink shawl over her head, a frail-looking Mai sat quietly in the court throughout the session.

"WE HAVE A STRONG CASE"

Mai's lawyer, Aitzaz Ahsan, said he believed that there was "substantial evidence" to corrorborate the crime against the accused.

"Our case is that the high court in acquitting has misappreciated and misread the evidence," Ahsan told reporters at the end of Monday's session.

"We feel we have a strong case," he said.

"We do not want the matter to be prolonged ... we want the Supreme Court to reappraise the evidence and give the judgment on the basis of that."

The three-judge Supreme Court bench discussed procedural issues on Monday before adjourning the session.

The hearing will resume on Tuesday.

The six convicted men, and another six men who served on the village council and were detained, were ordered released by the Punjab high court this month although they remain in detention.

Human rights workers had wanted Mai to go abroad to speak on the plight of women but the government, saying it was acting in the interests of her security, recently banned her from overseas travel.

Following protests from various quarters, including the U.S. government, the ban was lifted but her passport was not immediately returned.

Mai said on Monday she had got her passport back though she had no immediate plan to travel because she wanted to see her appeal finished first.

A State Department spokesman said last week Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the matter of Mai's freedom to travel with Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri.

President Pervez Musharraf, who has been trying to project Pakistan as a moderate and progressive Muslim nation, has taken a personal interest Mai's case, saying it was tarnishing the country's image overseas.

[Livyjr]

"Rape victim takes case to Pakistan's Supreme Court"

By Zeeshan Haider
Mon Jun 27, 6:14 AM ET

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - A Pakistani woman gang raped in 2002 on the orders of a village council said on Monday she hoped the country's Supreme Court would reimpose death sentences on the men who attacked her.

President Pervez Musharraf, who has been trying to project Pakistan as a moderate and progressive Muslim nation, has taken a personal interest Mai's case, saying it was tarnishing the country's image overseas.

"From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War"

By Glenn Frankel, Washington Post Foreign Service

Tue Jun 28, 1:00 AM ET

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal."

"The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture.

Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

The documents indicate that the officials foresaw a host of problems that later would haunt both governments -- including thin intelligence about the nature of the Iraqi threat, weak public support for war and a lack of planning for the aftermath of military action.

British cabinet ministers, Foreign Office diplomats, senior generals and intelligence service officials all weighed in with concerns and reservations.

Yet they could not dissuade their counterparts in the Bush administration -- nor, indeed, their own leader -- from going forward.

"I think there is a real risk that the administration underestimates the difficulties," David Manning, Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote to the prime minister on March 14, 2002, after he returned from meetings with Condoleezza Rice, then Bush's national security adviser, and her staff.

"They may agree that failure isn't an option, but this does not mean they will necessarily avoid it."

A U.S. official with firsthand knowledge of the events said the concerns raised by British officials "played a useful role."

"Were they paid a tremendous amount of heed?" said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

"I think it's hard to say they were."

Critics of the Bush administration contend the documents -- including the now-famous Downing Street Memo of July 23, 2002 -- constitute proof that Bush made the decision to go to war at least eight months before it began, and that the subsequent diplomatic campaign at the United Nations was a charade, designed to convince the public that war was necessary, rather than an attempt to resolve the crisis peacefully.

They contend the documents have not received the attention they deserve.

Supporters of the administration contend, by contrast, that the memos add little or nothing to what is already publicly known about the run-up to the war and even help show that the British officials genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

They say that opponents of Bush and Blair are distorting the documents' meaning in order to attack both men politically.

But beyond the question of whether they constitute a so-called smoking gun of evidence against the White House, the memos offer an intriguing look at what the top officials of the United States' chief ally were thinking, doing and fearing in the months before the war.

This article is based on those memos, supplemented by interviews with officials on both sides of the Atlantic -- none of whom was willing to be cited by name because of the sensitivity of the issue -- and written accounts.

Spokesmen for the Foreign Office and the prime minister's office declined to comment but did not question the authenticity of the documents.

British concerns over the direction of Iraq policy began long before July 2002.

By the end of January of that year, officials said, the British Embassy in Washington informed London that U.S. military planning for an invasion of Iraq had begun.

The sense of alarm here increased after Bush, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, branded Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" -- a phrase many people in Britain saw as bellicose and simplistic.

Blair did not share their view.

His aides contend that in the days immediately after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Blair saw Saddam Hussein's Iraq as a potential danger that needed to be dealt with.

But the prime minister faced an entirely different set of obstacles, political and legal, than Bush did, including much stronger domestic opposition to war.

The first major British cabinet discussion on Iraq took place March 7, 2002, according to the memoirs of Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who quotes several senior cabinet secretaries as raising questions about the war.

"What has changed that suddenly gives us the legal right to take military action that we didn't have a few months ago?" demanded David Blunkett, one of Blair's closest political allies.

Blair defended his approach, Cook reported, by saying Britain's national interest lay in staying closely allied with the United States.

"I tell you that we must steer close to America," Blair said, according to Cook.

"If we don't, we lose our influence to shape what they do."

These themes would be repeated regularly in the first six Downing Street memos, composed between the March 7 cabinet meeting and Blair's trip to Crawford a month later.

The first memo was a 10-page options paper produced by the overseas and defense secretariat of the Cabinet Office the day after the cabinet meeting.

It noted that British intelligence on Iraq was poor, that no legal justification currently existed for invasion and that removing Hussein's government "could involve nation building over many years."

Still, it concluded: "Despite the considerable difficulties, the use of overriding force in a ground campaign is the only option that we can be confident will remove Saddam and bring Iraq back into the international community."

In his memo to Blair six days later, Manning wrote that "Bush has yet to find the answers to the big questions."

The foreign policy adviser raised several matters, including "how to persuade international opinion that military action against Iraq is necessary and justified" and "what happens on the morning after?"

On March 22, Peter Ricketts, then political director of the Foreign Office, wrote to Straw that Blair could also "bring home to Bush some of the realities" and "help Bush make good decisions by telling him things his own machine probably isn't."

Ricketts went on to warn that a military campaign would need "clear and compelling military objectives" and that regime change "does not stack up."

"Regime change which produced another Sunni General still in charge of an active Iraqi WMD program would be a bad outcome," Ricketts concluded.

Finally, Straw weighed in with his own memo to Blair laying out the political problems in convincing members of Parliament in the ruling Labor Party that the use of force was justified, legal and would produce the desired result.

But even after legal justification, Straw added, "We have also to answer the big question -- what will this action achieve?"

"There seems to be a larger hole on this than on anything."

A U.S. official who observed the process said British objections followed a traditional path.

"To some extent the mandarins were playing the role they were acculturated to play in the Washington-London dialectic, which is always to play devil's advocate," he said.

"I'm not saying they were sanguine -- they weren't -- but since time immemorial they have always played Athens to our Rome, working hard to remove us from a tendency toward what they consider impetuosity or misguided idealism."

At the Crawford summit, in April 2002, Bush and Blair discussed the prospect of going to war in the spring or fall of 2003.

According to a Cabinet Office briefing paper prepared in July, Blair told Bush that "the U.K. would support military action to bring about regime change, provided that certain conditions were met: efforts had been made to construct a coalition/shape public opinion, the Israel-Palestine Crisis was quiescent, and the options for action to eliminate Iraq's WMD through U.N. weapons inspectors had been exhausted."

In a post-summit speech at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Tex., Blair offered a cryptic criticism of his own advisers.

His commitment to democratic values, Blair said, "means that when America is fighting for those values, then, however tough, we fight with her -- no grandstanding, no offering implausible and impractical advice from the touchline."

"In the end, only Blair and Bush know what they said to each other at Crawford and what they agreed to," said a senior British official.

"They spent a long time together with no one else around, which was most unusual."

After his return from Washington, officials and analysts say, Blair sought to unify the fractious elements within his government and party around a policy of coercive diplomacy.

"Blair comes back from Crawford with a clear sense that the Americans are preparing for war," said Michael Clarke, director of the International Policy Institute at King's College, who met with policymakers at key points during the year.

"But the British approach is slightly different -- that we are preparing for war as a means of forcing Iraq to comply so that we don't actually have to fight."

By the early summer of 2002, officials said, there was a new sense of alarm and concern in London.

The Bush administration had not committed to seeking U.N. support, and U.S. forces were increasing flyovers and other military activities that officials feared could be provocative.

Meanwhile, opinion polls were showing that a majority of Britons opposed military action and 160 members of Parliament had signed a proposed resolution urging caution.

Several senior officials were dispatched to the United States for consultations.

When they returned to London, a meeting was scheduled that produced two more secret documents.

The first was a Cabinet Office briefing paper dated July 21 that expressed concern that stepped-up U.S. air raids inside Iraq created "the risk that military action is precipitated in an unplanned way."

The briefing paper also said that a Security Council resolution setting up the return of U.N. inspectors to Iraq could be drafted in a way that Hussein would find unacceptable.

"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject (because he is unwilling to accept unfettered access) and which would not be regarded as unreasonable by the international community," the memo reported.

On July 23, officials gathered at Blair's office.

Among them were Straw; Manning; Richard Dearlove, chief of Britain's MI6 intelligence agency; Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon; Attorney General Peter Goldsmith; and Adm. Michael Boyce, chief of the Defense Staff.

Dearlove, a veteran intelligence operative with a reputation for being hard-nosed and ambitious, had just returned from a visit to Washington, where officials say he met with Rice and CIA Director George J. Tenet.

According to the July 23 memo, Dearlove reported "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington.

"Military action was now seen as inevitable," the memo said, adding that the president's National Security Council "had no patience with the U.N. route."

Dearlove also included the observation that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Straw, who was consulting daily with his American counterpart, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, reiterated that "it seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided," according to the memo.

But, Straw added, "the case was thin."

He urged the government to produce a plan for an ultimatum to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to return to Iraq.

The memo indicates that officials believed Iraq had such weapons.

What would happen, asked Boyce, if Hussein "used WMD on day one" of an attack, or on Kuwait?

"Or on Israel," Hoon added.

It also suggests that the purpose of British pressure to return to the United Nations was not to settle the crisis peacefully through the inspection system, but to build a legal justification for war.

Blair is cited as saying that "it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the U.N. inspectors."

Blair had an ally in Powell, who was also counseling that another approach had to be made to the United Nations before an international coalition could be assembled to back the use of military force.

When Blair sat down with Bush at Camp David on Sept. 7, 2002, the president told him he had decided to seek a Security Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance.

Blair looked greatly relieved, according to Bob Woodward's book, "Plan of Attack," which was published last year.

But then Bush looked Blair in the eye and warned that dealing with the Iraqi threat would still likely entail war.

"I'm with you," Blair replied, according to Woodward's book.

The U.S.-led invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003.

Many inside the British policy establishment still feel angry and bruised about the invasion and its aftermath.

Analysts say the leak of the documents shows the depth of those feelings.

"No doubt from the British point of view Iraq has been a strategic blunder -- not just a mistake, but a mistake that we're still paying for," said Clarke, of King's College.

"Still, while no one in government would ever say it, the rationale from the British point of view is that our strategic relationship with the U.S. is more important than any single campaign we fight on its behalf."

"The basic calculation was: Right or wrong, it is in our interest to stand with the United States."

Staff writer Walter Pincus in Washington contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

"Rove Taking a More Public Role - Bush Adviser Playing Messenger for Second-Term Agenda"

By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 26, 2005; Page A01

He has risen to the highest ranks of the White House, carries the title of deputy chief of staff and presides over a broad portfolio of domestic and foreign issues.

But even as he has morphed from political operative to policy adviser, Karl Rove retains the instincts of the direct-mail specialist he once was in Texas.

"Karl for a long time has tried to position the Democrats as liberals, and liberals as weak, who don't want to defend America."

"From Memos, Insights Into Ally's Doubts On Iraq War"

By Glenn Frankel, Washington Post Foreign Service

Tue Jun 28, 1:00 AM ET

LONDON -- In the spring of 2002, two weeks before British Prime Minister Tony Blair journeyed to Crawford, Tex., to meet with President Bush at his ranch about the escalating confrontation with Iraq, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw sounded a prescient warning.

"The rewards from your visit to Crawford will be few," Straw wrote in a March 25 memo to Blair stamped "Secret and Personal."

"The risks are high, both for you and for the Government."

In public, British officials were declaring their solidarity with the Bush administration's calls for elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

But Straw's memo and seven other secret documents disclosed in recent months by British journalist Michael Smith together reveal a much different picture.

Behind the scenes, British officials believed the U.S. administration was already committed to a war that they feared was ill-conceived and illegal and could lead to disaster.

Hey, kids!

Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference (1) between liberals and conservatives is?

In case you come across an acqaintance or relative who is interested in discussing that difference, here’s a handy quiz to help them through the quandry.

[NOTE: footnotes are in ( )]

1) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl.

What was the most important part of that preparation?

a) Sitting motionlessly to listen to schoolchildren read "My Pet Goat"before sprinting for a bunker in Nebraska to hide for the rest of the day.

b) Preventing Dixie Chicks records from being played on the radio.

c) Re-naming fried potatoes and fried, egg-dipped bread so that France doesn't get credit for them.

d) Making officers who point out what was actually needed for war resign from the Pentagon.

e) All of the above.

2) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl.

What was the SECOND most important part of that preparation?

a) Trying to get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge opened for drilling because otherwise the terrorists would win. (1)

b) Trying to get a massive tax break for the richest 1% of Americans. (3)

c) Letting the guy who masterminded that 9/11 savagery stroll unimpeded into Pakistan. (4)

d) Destroying evidence in the anthrax attack case. (5)

e) All of the above.

3) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," Karl told his conservative audience.

Which of these noted young conservatives felt just like Karl, threw moderation and restraint aside, and joined the military immediately?

a) George P. Bush, nephew of the current White House occupant.

b) Jeb Bush Junior, nephew of the current White House occupant.

c) Billy Bush, cousin of the current White House occupant.

d) Andrew M. Rove, son of Karl Rove.

e) None of the above.

4) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," Karl told his conservative audience.

Which of these was the most valuable result of conservatives not being moderate or restrained?

a) We invaded a country that had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, and now 135,000 American troops are bogged down in a futile occupation.

b) Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 savagery, remains at large, with his criminal organization much larger and more powerful than before the attacks.

c) Virtually every ally we had in the world is estranged, and this country, which was a beacon of human rights, human rights is now synonymous with torture.

d) Our troops are fighting alone while the White House pretends that countries like Eritrea and the Solomon Islands are helping the war effort.

e) All of the above.

5) Rove fretted aloud to his audience about the danger to our troops.

Which of these actions is least likely to increase this danger?

a) Claiming that war is a cakewalk and refusing to adequately prepare for the effort needed. (6)

b) Failing to secure weapons depots and ammuntions dumps after the invasion. (7)

c) Equipping the troops with inadequate and antiquated gear and publicly sneering at their concerns. (8)

d) Keeping battle-weary troops on the front lines indefinitely. (9)

e) Pointing out that the torture currently being inflicted in the GOP’s concentration camp at Guantanamo was pretty much like the torture dished out in totalitarian regimes.

6) Rove also said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers!"

What would have been the drawbacks of that approach?

a) Osama Bin Laden and his gang might have been indicted, captured, tried and punished due to the cooperation of nearly every law enforcement organization on the planet.

b) Al Qaeda might have been disgraced and destroyed.

c) Americans might have understood who had attacked us and why they had done so.

d) Mental illness of the sort publicly exhibited by Karl Rove and his audience might get treated through therapy.

e) All of the above.

If your friend guessed "e" was the correct answer, tell him "congratulations."

If he didn’t get them all right, try this bonus question!

How long will Americans be stuck in Iraq?

a) Major combat operations ended more than a year ago. (10)

b) Just a few weeks. (11)

c) Less than six months. (12)

d) Not long after the elections. (13)

e) For generations to come. (14)

Footnotes:

Here’s (1)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/23/politics/23rove.html ?

Here’s (2)
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA451.html

Here’s (3)
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/12/09/GOP.dasc... /

Here’s (4)
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0304/p01s03-wosc.html

Here’s (5)
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/...

Here’s (6)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A1996-2002Feb1...

Here’s (7)
http://kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1

Here’s (8)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46508-20...

Here’s (9)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4072467.stm

Here’s (10)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/01/bush.carrier.... /

Here’s 11
http://www.usatoday.com/educate/war28-article.htm

Here’s 12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2738089.stm

Here’s 13
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/12/powell.troops.iraq /

Here’s 14
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160008,00.html

[Livyjr]

And in addition to being very much in favor of impeaching George W. Bush for trying to cover up the fact that he intended to wage aggressive war against Iraq by lying to Congress about some non-existent weapons of mass destruction, I'd also like to see these corporate crooks up on a scaffold, like they used to do over there in England .....

Corporate Scandals

"Ex-Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski found guilty - Former finance chief Mark Swartz also convicted of looting firm"

BREAKING NEWS

The Associated Press

Updated: 4:11 p.m. ET June 17, 2005

NEW YORK - Former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski and a second executive were convicted Friday of looting their company of more than $600 million to fund extravagant lifestyles featuring expensive jewelry, an opulent Manhattan apartment and a gaudy Mediterranean birthday party.

A state court jury deliberated over 11 days before returning the verdict in the second prosecution of Kozlowski, 58, and Mark H. Swartz, 44, the conglomerate’s former finance chief.

Both were convicted of grand larceny, falsifying business records, securities fraud and other charges.

The verdict came after a four-month trial in Manhattan state Supreme Court.

They now face up to 30 years in prison on their convictions —the maximum sentence for both under the law, prosecutors said.

The pair had testified they were unaware of any wrongdoing when they accepted the money and loans.

“We are disappointed, and we will deal with this on appeal,” promised Swartz’s attorney, Charles Stillman.

Although prosecutors called for the pair to be jailed pending sentencing, both were allowed to remain free on $10 million bail apiece.

Their dejected wives sat in the courtroom, their heads hanging, as the jury foreman intoned guilty verdict after guilty verdict against the pair —22 for each.

Kozlowski and Swartz, who were each acquitted of just one charge, are due back in court Aug. 2 for a pre-sentencing hearing.

The pair joins a string of executives convicted in recent months in high-profile corporate wrongdoing cases, among them former WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers and Adelphia Communications Corp. founder John Rigas and his son, Timothy.

Richard Scrushy, founder and former chief executive at HealthSouth Corp., is on trial on fraud charges and awaiting a jury verdict in federal court in Birmingham, Ala.

And former Enron Corp. executives Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling are scheduled to go on trial early next year.

"Jury Acquits Scrushy on Conspiracy Count"

By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer

5 minutes ago

BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Jurors acquitted HealthSouth Corp. founder and fired Chief Executive Richard Scrushy on a key conspiracy count Tuesday related to a $2.7 billion earnings overstatement at the rehabilitation and medical services chain.

The charge, with sweeping implications because it included allegations of fraud, false corporate reporting and making false statements to regulators, was the first in a 36-count indictment against Scrushy, the first CEO charged under the Sarbanes-Oxley corporate reporting law.

The court session continued as jurors announced their decision on the Sarbanes-Oxley charge and others against Scrushy, who blamed the massive accounting scheme on subordinates including all five finance chiefs who served under him at HealthSouth.

In all, 15 former HealthSouth executives have pleaded guilty since 2003, when the scandal erupted publicly and drove the company to the brink of bankruptcy.

[Livyjr]

Hey, kids!

Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference between liberals and conservatives is?

In case you come across an acqaintance or relative who is interested in discussing that difference, here’s a handy quiz to help them through the quandry.

1) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war," said Karl.

What was the most important part of that preparation?

a) Sitting motionlessly to listen to schoolchildren read "My Pet Goat"before sprinting for a bunker in Nebraska to hide for the rest of the day.

b) Preventing Dixie Chicks records from being played on the radio.

c) Re-naming fried potatoes and fried, egg-dipped bread so that France doesn't get credit for them.

d) Making officers who point out what was actually needed for war resign from the Pentagon.

e) All of the above.

"Iraq Car Bombs Kill Shiite Lawmaker, 2 GIs"

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer

2 hours, 15 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A suicide car bomber killed an influential Shiite member of parliament and his son as they drove to the capital Tuesday, an attack likely to stoke ethnic tensions on the first anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis.

The attack that killed Dhari Ali al-Fayadh, his son and two bodyguards was one of several around the country carried out by suicide bombers.

Other attacks killed one U.S. soldier in Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and one in Tikrit.

Two soldiers were wounded.

At least 1,743 members of the U.S. military have died since the war began in 2003, according to an Associated Press count.

The attacks came as more than 1,000 U.S. troops and Iraqi forces launched "Operation Sword" in a bid to crush insurgents and foreign fighters in western Iraq — the third major offensive in the area in recent weeks.

The campaigns have not been able to stem a resilient insurgency that has killed more than 1,350 people — mostly civilians and Iraqi forces — since Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari announced his Shiite-dominated government on April 28.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani nevertheless praised the anniversary because it led to the Jan. 30 election, country's first free balloting in decades.

"This is a blessed day which saw the restoration of independence and national sovereignty," Talabani said after meeting U.S. and British envoys.

"But we think that the restoration of independence started after the epic, the legend, of the elections."

Al-Fayadh, who was in his late 80s, was killed while traveling to parliament from his farm in Rashidiya, 20 miles northeast of Baghdad, said parliamentarian Hummam Hammoudi, who heads a committee charged with drafting a new constitution.

Four people were wounded, police Maj. Falah al-Mihamadawi said.

The group al-Qaida in Iraq claimed responsibility for the assassination on an Islamic Web site, saying a "suicide car bomber, in a heroic attack, exploded himself at the motorcade of the assembly member, his guards and his companions."

The authenticity of the statement could not be verified.

Al-Fayadh was the eldest member of the new parliament, and he was the interim speaker until one was elected.

He was a member of the country's largest Shiite political party, the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq.

Al-Fayadh also was a senior sheik from the al-Boamer tribe in the Mahmoudiya area, about 20 miles south of Baghdad and a hotbed of the insurgency.

Al-Boamer includes both Sunni and Shiite clans.

"Those who killed the sheik are the enemies of the Iraqi people at large," Hammoudi said.

Al-Fayadh was the second Shiite legislator to be killed since the parliament started work in March.

Lamia Abed Khadouri al-Sagri, a member of the Iraqi List party, was killed April 27 in eastern Baghdad.

Al-Fayadh's seat will be taken by the runner-up from the same party.

The country's Shiites already are on edge following car bombings last week that killed nearly 40 people in predominantly Shiite neighborhoods in Baghdad.

With the Sunni-dominated insurgency targeting the Shiite majority, the wave of killings has raised fears of civil war.

In other violence, a car bomb north of Baghdad killed five people and injured nine, police said.

The explosion occurred near the headquarters of an Iraqi quick-reaction police force in Baqouba, 35 miles northeast of the capital, police Capt. Nihad Jamal Ibrahim said.

Two other car bombs in Baqouba caused no injuries, police said.

Near Musayyib, 40 miles south of Baghdad, a bomber wearing explosives blew himself up at a checkpoint, killing one policeman and wounding 17, police said.

In Kirkuk, a suicide car bomber slammed into a convoy carrying traffic police chief Brig. Gen. Salar Ahmed, killing one of his bodyguards and a civilian, said police Lt. Assad Mohammed.

Four others, including Ahmed and three of his bodyguards, were wounded in the city 180 miles north of Baghdad.

Separately, U.S. soldiers killed an Iraqi news executive when he did not pull over as an American convoy passed on a road in Baghdad, said Dr. Muhanad Jawad of Yarmouk Hospital.

Ahmed Wael Bakri worked as a director at al-Sharqiya TV.

The U.S. military said it was investigating.

Bakri was the third Iraqi journalist alleged to have been killed by U.S. forces in similar incidents in the past week.

A U.S. reconnaissance helicopter was hit Monday night by small-arms fire in Tal Afar, about 95 miles east of the Syrian border, and forced to land, but there were no reports of injuries, said Sgt. John Franzen, a spokesman.

The new U.S.-led military campaign is focusing on communities along the Euphrates River between the towns of Hit and Haditha in the volatile Anbar province, said Marine Capt. Jeffrey Pool, a spokesman.

The U.S. troops include Marines, soldiers and sailors from Regimental Combat Team 2, which is part of the 2nd Marine Division.

The region, about 125 miles northwest of Baghdad, is rife with insurgents.

Operation Sword, or "Saif" in Arabic, comes on the heels of two other offensives: operations Spear and Dagger.

Operation Spear was aimed at stemming the flow of foreign fighters over the porous Syrian border in Karabilah, near the Iraqi frontier town of Qaim.

The U.S. military said nearly 50 insurgents were killed in the five-day operation.

North of Baghdad, Operation Dagger was aimed at uprooting networks of foreign fighters.

The U.S.-led coalition has carried out other raids recently, detaining hundreds of suspected insurgents.

Consequently, the U.S. military said it was expanding its overcrowded prisons across Iraq to hold as many as 16,000 detainees.

Meanwhile, Syria has increased the flow of water down the Euphrates to boost Iraq's power generation, the government in Damascus said in comments published Tuesday.

The move was a gesture of solidarity with the Iraqis who are passing through "very delicate circumstances," Irrigation Minister Nader al-Buni said, according to the official newspaper Al-Thawra.

From mid-June, Syria had been supplying Iraq with water flowing at 23,658 cubic feet per second, al-Buni said.

He did not give the normal flow.
___

Associated Press reporter Jacob Silberberg in Hit contributed to this report.

[Livyjr]

And here is a serious public service announcement:

Safety - Hotel/Motel Keys

From the Colorado Bureau of Investigation:

"Southern California law enforcement professionals assigned to detect new threats to personal security issues, recently discovered what type of information is embedded in the credit card type hotel room keys used throughout the industry."

Although room keys differ from hotel to hotel, a key obtained from the "Double Tree" chain that was being used for a regional Identity Theft Presentation was found to contain the following the information:

a. Customers (your) name

b. Customers partial home address

c. Hotel room number

d. Check in date and check out date

e. Customer's (your) credit card number and expiration date!

When you turn them in to the front desk your personal information is there for any employee to access by simply scanning the card in the hotel scanner.

An employee can take a hand full of cards home and using a scanning device, access the information onto a laptop computer and go shopping at your expense.

Simply put, hotels do not erase the information on these cards until an employee re-issues the card to the next hotel guest.

At that time, the new guest's information is electronically "overwritten" on the card and the previous guest's information is erased in the overwriting process.

But until the card is rewritten for the next guest, it usually is kept in a drawer at the front desk with YOUR INFORMATION ON IT!

The bottom line is: Keep the cards, take them home with you, or destroy them.

NEVER leave them behind in the room or room wastebasket, and NEVER turn them in to the front desk when you check out of a room.

They will not charge you for the card (it's illegal) and you'll be sure you are not leaving a lot of valuable personal information on it that could be easily lifted off with any simple scanning device card reader.

For the same reason, if you arrive at the airport and discover you still have the card key in your pocket, do not toss it in an airport trash basket.

Take it home and destroy it by cutting it up, especially through the electronic information strip!

[Livyjr]

"Wash. State GOP Pays $15K to Democrats"

Tue Jun 28, 8:36 AM ET

SEATTLE - The Washington state Republican Party paid Democrats $15,000 to cover court costs in the GOP's unsuccessful challenge to the election of Gov. Christine O. Gregoire.

Officials said the check was cut Friday as Chelan County Superior Court Judge E. Bridges signed a final order to dismiss the Republican challenge, affirming a ruling he issued June 6 that upheld the election results.

Democrats had asked the judge to award nearly $48,000 in court costs for defending the election challenge and said they spent nearly $3.5 million in overall legal costs.

But the two sides reached a settlement requiring the GOP to pay just $15,000.

"It's a business decision," state GOP chairman Chris Vance said.

"If we had gone to court and fought over it, our lawyers said we might win or we might lose."

"Everybody who's ever been sued faces that question: Do you want to take the risk or settle?"

Gregoire, a Democrat, won by 129 votes in a hand recount after Republican Dino Rossi finished ahead in the initial tally and again in a machine recount.

Rossi and party officials have said they will not appeal Bridges' decision upholding Gregoire's election.

"It's nice to have one final document because that is likely to be the last word on election contests and the standards for governing election contests for a long time," said Kevin Hamilton, a Democratic Party lawyer.

Hamilton confirmed Monday that a settlement had been negotiated on court costs and that the check had been delivered.

[jeffmoskin]

Hey, kids!

Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference (1) between liberals and conservatives is?

In case you come across an acqaintance or relative who is interested in discussing that difference, here’s a handy quiz to help them through the quandry.

Dang. That's a TOUGH test.

Maybe we should be thankful that our public schools are turning out illiterates.

[Livyjr]

Hey, kids!

Are you wondering, like Karl Rove was lately, what the difference between liberals and conservatives is?

In case you come across an acqaintance or relative who is interested in discussing that difference, here’s a handy quiz to help them through the quandry.

1) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl.

What was the most important part of that preparation?

a) Sitting motionlessly to listen to schoolchildren read "My Pet Goat"before sprinting for a bunker in Nebraska to hide for the rest of the day.

b) Preventing Dixie Chicks records from being played on the radio.

c) Re-naming fried potatoes and fried, egg-dipped bread so that France doesn't get credit for them.

d) Making officers who point out what was actually needed for war resign from the Pentagon.

e) All of the above.

2) "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war" said Karl.

What was the SECOND most important part of that preparation?

a) Trying to get the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge opened for drilling because otherwise the terrorists would win.

b) Trying to get a massive tax break for the richest 1% of Americans.

c) Letting the guy who masterminded that 9/11 savagery stroll unimpeded into Pakistan.

d) Destroying evidence in the anthrax attack case.

e) All of the above.

3) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," Karl told his conservative audience.

Which of these noted young conservatives felt just like Karl, threw moderation and restraint aside, and joined the military immediately?

a) George P. Bush, nephew of the current White House occupant.

b) Jeb Bush Junior, nephew of the current White House occupant.

c) Billy Bush, cousin of the current White House occupant.

d) Andrew M. Rove, son of Karl Rove.

e) None of the above.

4) "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble," Karl told his conservative audience.

Which of these was the most valuable result of conservatives not being moderate or restrained?

a) We invaded a country that had nothing at all to do with the 9/11 attacks, and now 135,000 American troops are bogged down in a futile occupation.

b) Osama Bin Laden, the architect of the 9/11 savagery, remains at large, with his criminal organization much larger and more powerful than before the attacks.

c) Virtually every ally we had in the world is estranged, and this country, which was a beacon of human rights, human rights is now synonymous with torture.

d) Our troops are fighting alone while the White House pretends that countries like Eritrea and the Solomon Islands are helping the war effort.

e) All of the above.

5) Rove fretted aloud to his audience about the danger to our troops.

Which of these actions is least likely to increase this danger?

a) Claiming that war is a cakewalk and refusing to adequately prepare for the effort needed. 

b) Failing to secure weapons depots and ammuntions dumps after the invasion.

c) Equipping the troops with inadequate and antiquated gear and publicly sneering at their concerns.

d) Keeping battle-weary troops on the front lines indefinitely.

e) Pointing out that the torture currently being inflicted in the GOP’s concentration camp at Guantanamo was pretty much like the torture dished out in totalitarian regimes.

6) Rove also said "liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers!"

What would have been the drawbacks of that approach?

a) Osama Bin Laden and his gang might have been indicted, captured, tried and punished due to the cooperation of nearly every law enforcement organization on the planet.

b) Al Qaeda might have been disgraced and destroyed.

c) Americans might have understood who had attacked us and why they had done so.

d) Mental illness of the sort publicly exhibited by Karl Rove and his audience might get treated through therapy.

e) All of the above.

If your friend guessed "e" was the correct answer, tell him "congratulations."

If he didn’t get them all right, try this bonus question!

How long will Americans be stuck in Iraq?

a) Major combat operations ended more than a year ago.

b) Just a few weeks.

c) Less than six months.

d) Not long after the elections.

e) For generations to come.

Dang.

That's a TOUGH test.

Maybe we should be thankful that our public schools are turning out illiterates.

Don't tell anybody, jeffmoskin, but somebody snuck me out a crib sheet, and I'm pretty sure that the answers are all choice e, although on that question 1, I was pretty torn between whether preventing Dixie Chicks records from being played on the radio was maybe a little more important than re-naming fried potatoes and fried, egg-dipped bread so that France doesn't get credit for them.

I don't like them French, what with them eating snails and frogs, oh, oookey, but these Dixie Chicks, well, they're downright subversive, you know, and ....

And, uh, what's an illiterate?

[Livyjr]

And this alternate question that the New York State Board of Regents are supposedly thinking of adding to the AP version of this test is a real toughie, too:

Hey, kids!

Okay kids, come on kids, now listen up, come on, please, okay, everybody give everybody else a hug, there, that's good, isn't it nice to be so free that we can do that, give each others hugs, even though we are all sinners, because Jesus just loves Americans who sin, isn't that nice, okay now, kids, now, recently, the GREAT AMERICAN HERO Karl Rove told his CONSERVATIVE audience, "I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground, a side of the Pentagon destroyed, and almost 3,000 of our fellow citizens perish in flames and rubble!"

For extra points, and a chance at a scholarship to the American college of your choice, WHAT DID KARL ROVE FEEL ON 9-11, if it was not moderation and restraint?

1) Outright glee?

2) Joy?

3) Lust at the thought of having an opportunity to see all of those naked Arabic men, while they were held helplessly in bondage, just for him?

4) Thankfulness that his plans to conquer first America and then the world were finally coming to fruition?

5) All of the above, and some other stuff, too, that cannot be talked about in here, because some of us still have values, here in OUR America?

[Livyjr]

"U.S. military helicopter downed in Afghanistan - Fate of 17 troops on board unknown; ‘hostile fire’ thought responsible"

June 28: A U.S. CH-47 Chinook transport helicopter has crashed while flying troops into eastern Afghanistan.

Updated: 7:11 a.m. ET June 29, 2005

KABUL, Afghanistan - The U.S. military said Wednesday that hostile fire likely brought down a Chinook helicopter that crashed in eastern Afghanistan, and officials said the status of the 17 American servicemembers aboard was “unknown.”

If confirmed, Tuesday’s attack would apparently be the first time a U.S.-led coalition aircraft here has been downed by hostile fire, representing a major new threat to the coalition.

The U.S.-backed mujahideen war against Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan in the 1980s finally turned when the Afghan fighters began shooting down Soviet aircraft.

The troops were on a mission against al-Qaida fighters when the helicopter went down in mountainous terrain near Asadabad, in Kunar province.

“The helicopter was transporting forces into the area as part of Operation Red Wing, which is part of the enduring fight to defeat al-Qaida militants,” a military statement said.

“Initial reports indicate the crash may have been caused by hostile fire."

"The status of the service members is unknown at this time.”

U.S. spokeswomen Lt. Cindy Moore said no other details about those on board was available, nearly 24 hours after the crash occurred.

Concerns already have been on the rise that rebel attacks here have been escalating into a conflict on the scale of that in Iraq.

More than 660 people have been killed in Afghanistan since March — including 465 suspected insurgents, 29 U.S. troops, 43 Afghan police and soldiers, and 125 civilians — a level unprecedented since the ouster of the Taliban in 2001.

'Tragic event for all of us'

The military statement said coalition and Afghan troops had “quickly moved into position around the crash to block any enemy movement toward or away from the site” and that coalition support aircraft were overhead.

Kunar provincial police chief Abdul Gafar said coalition troops had been dropped by helicopters into the rugged mountains around the crash site.

He said the government had proposed sending Afghan soldiers into the region, but the offer was declined by the coalition.

“This is a tragic event for all of us, and our hearts and prayers go out to the families, loved ones and men still fighting in the area,” said U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Greg Champion, deputy commanding general of Combined Joint Task Force-76.

“This incident will only further our resolve to defeat the enemies of peace.”

Provincial Gov. Asadullah Wafa also told AP that the Taliban downed the aircraft with a rocket.

Taliban claims responsibility

Purported Taliban spokesman Mullah Latif Hakimi telephoned The Associated Press before news of the crash was released Tuesday and claimed the insurgents shot it down.

He said the rebels filmed the attack and would release the video to the media.

Hakimi often calls news organizations to claim responsibility for attacks on behalf of the Taliban.

His information has frequently proven untrue or exaggerated, and his exact tie to the group’s leadership is unclear.

The crash was the second of a Chinook helicopter in Afghanistan this year.

On April 6, 15 U.S. service members and three American civilians were killed when their chopper went down in a sandstorm while returning to the main U.S. base at Bagram.

The cause of that crash is still under investigation, military officials say.

Much of the recent fighting has been along Afghanistan’s border with Pakistan.

The U.S. military has launched operations along several parts of the frontier against al-Qaida and Taliban militants, as well as foreign fighters using high mountain passes to cross over from Pakistan.

The violence has left much of desperately poor Afghanistan off-limits to aid workers.

Afghan and U.S. officials have predicted that the situation will deteriorate in the lead-up to legislative elections in September — the next key step toward democracy after a quarter-century of war.