Washington Gazette

FAIR AND BALANCED SPIN INSIDE THE BELTWAY

"Bush Twins Vow Support Of Military Recruitment Goals"

By John F. Youmans

As the Bush twins don their new camouflaged military uniforms, they have declared they will do everything possible to assist military recruiters reach their plummeting recruitment goals.

"It's the least we can do," one of the twins said.

"We believe in Shared Sacrifice."

"It is the responsibility of everyone to support this war to defend our country from terrorists."

When asked if they would be going to Iraq, both twins shrieked, "Lord no!"

"We haven't signed up."

"We are going to help others who are less fortunate to sign up."

Other Bush family members are assisting.

"Uncle Jeb's son George looks great in desert camouflage and he's helping," the twins said.

"Noelle said the Army has lowered their drug abuse standards and she is helping them pass the drug tests."

"I'll ask Dad how that works."

The twins said they would begin their campaign at the Franklin County Army Recruiting station a few blocks from the White House.

"We went the other day, but we didn't see anyone we knew."

"It was scary!" they said.

"But we will go to as many poor communities as we can this summer."

"We know these poor unemployed people need a job and they can even earn money for a decent education."

The Young Republicans meet for their national convention July 6-10 at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas.

Thousands of young war supporters will be present.

What an excellent opportunity to pick up some additional military recruits.

Young Republicans are being urged to "Be a man and join up."

However, a group representative refused to participate in recruitment goals.

“That’s got a negative tone,” the spokesman said.

With this effort by the Bush twins, Army recruiting goals are sure to surge soon.

“We will even pick up volunteers in our limo, complete with Secret Service agents, to transport volunteers to the recruiting stations,” the twins promised.

You could make the argument that he should remain at-large:

To wit:


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1431539,00.html


January 09, 2005

Let Bin Laden stay free, says CIA man
Tony Allen-Mills

THE world may be better off if Osama Bin Laden remains at large, according to the Central Intelligence Agency’s recently departed executive director.

If the world’s most wanted terrorist is captured or killed, a power struggle among his Al-Qaeda subordinates may trigger a wave of terror attacks, said AB “Buzzy” Krongard, who stepped down six weeks ago as the CIA’s third most senior executive.

“You can make the argument that we’re better off with him (at large),” Krongard said. “Because if something happens to Bin Laden, you might find a lot of people vying for his position and demonstrating how macho they are by unleashing a stream of terror.”

Krongard, a former investment banker who joined the CIA in 1998, said Bin Laden’s role among Islamic militants was changing.

“He’s turning into more of a charismatic leader than a terrorist mastermind,” he said. “Some of his lieutenants are the ones to worry about.”

Krongard, 68, said he viewed Bin Laden “not as a chief executive but more like a venture capitalist”.

He added: “Let’s say you and I want to blow up Trafalgar Square. So we go to Bin Laden. And he’ll say, ‘Well, here’s some money and some passports and if you need weapons, see this guy’.

“I don’t see him keeping his fingers on everything because the lines of communications are just too difficult.”

Several US officials have privately admitted that it may be better to keep Bin Laden pinned down on the border of Afghanistan and Pakistan rather than make him a martyr or put him on trial. But Krongard is the most senior figure to acknowledge publicly that his capture might prove counter-productive.

Krongard also acknowledged that the CIA was still having trouble planting spies in Islamic militant ranks. “There are hundreds and hundreds of (Al-Qaeda) cells — it’s like a living, moving bit of protoplasm,” he said.

“In order to penetrate you not only have to be language-proficient, you also have to commit acts that exceed criminality. It’s very hard.”

His comments came as it emerged that new laws to combat the Al-Qaeda threat in Britain and keep the Belmarsh terror suspects in jail will be unveiled next month.

The draft terrorism bill will propose that “acts preparatory to terrorism” become a criminal offence to catch those who provide accommodation, finance, identity papers and other support. The bill will prove controversial because it could be applied restrospectively against many of the 11 foreign terror suspects being detained in Belmarsh, south London, and Broadmoor secure hospital.

Charles Clarke, the home secretary, is also planning to announce a civil punishment for those suspected of “associating” with terrorist suspects, but where there is insufficient proof to press charges.

Additional reporting: David Leppard

Well, jeffmoskin, as always, you keep the discussion alive and interesting in here, at least to me, anyway, because your posts from the "left coast" often serve as a counterpoint to what I am seeing here on the "EXTREME RIGHT COAST", especially with regard to this BID-NESS of TAY-RIZM, which seems to be anything that those in power want it to be!

SO!

Now, we're getting over into a class of people who are merely "suspected" of "associating" with terrorist suspects!

SO?

What exactly is a "terrorist suspect"?

And how exactly do you "associate" with one?

Come into an internet forum like this one, and converse with someone like yourself about just what in the Hell is going on in this world of OURS, when people like Pataki seem to be usurping that which is an exclusive power of OUR Congress, according to section 8 of Article I of OUR United States Constitution, to wit:

The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes?

Or Mr. A.B., maybe, because he is of middle-eastern descent?

Let's go back to this article that I posted some time ago, and take a peek:

"CIA Overseeing 3-Day War Game on Internet"

May 25, 2005

By TED BRIDIS, AP Technology Writer

WASHINGTON — The CIA is conducting a war game this week to simulate an unprecedented, Sept. 11-like electronic assault against the United States.

The three-day exercise, known as "Silent Horizon," is meant to test the ability of government and industry to respond to escalating Internet disruptions over many months, according to participants.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because the CIA asked them not to disclose details of the sensitive exercise taking place in Charlottesville, Va., about two hours southwest of Washington.

The simulated attacks were carried out five years in the future by a fictional new alliance of anti-American organizations that included anti-globalization hackers.

end quotes

"Anti-American organizations" that included "anti-globalization hackers"!

There it is, kind of right out there in plain sight, and so, it is just not seen, or noticed!

Then go up to the top of this post, where it says:

"New York governor fears anti-globalization crusaders gaining ground"

Anti-globalization crusaders?

What, exactly, is an "anti-globalization crusader", pray tell?

A terror suspect?

"There is a growing sentiment against the free market, open economies and more globalization of the world's economy,'' Pataki said in a speech at the International Economic Forum of the Americas.

MORE GLOBALIZATION OF THE WORLD'S ECONOMY?

Does the world have an economy?

And by asking that simple question, am I now suspected of being a "TAY-RIST"?

I'll tell you what, jeffmoskin, being a resident of New York State, where Pataki is the KING, and a dangerous one, in my estimation, because he knows no limitations on HIS POWER, I would say that answer is yes, and I'll tell you further, that this is very troubling to me, personally, indeed, because of my own experiences here in the State of New York with this concept of GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY, and what that really translates into!

And here is a touch of it, in this following:

Pataki also said he was doubtful that Congress would approve the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

"I'm not sure he'll get it through Congress,'' Pataki said of President Bush, "because there are those who are saying we have to protect the industries that are here as opposed to opening up markets both ways."

"I think that is completely wrong.''

Many Democrats complain the agreement lacks labor and environmental protections to stop abuses of workers in poor, low-wage Central America.

There, jeffmoskin, is GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY!

It is called exploitation, of course, by some, and so, by saying that, of course, I have just dug my own grave a few feet deeper, because now, I am questioning GLOBALIZATION of the WORLD'S ECONOMY!

SLAVES and MASTER!

Many of the former, and a handful of the latter!

Hhhhmmmm!

SO?

You are now a suspect, too, jeffmoskin, and that is how it starts ....

In Bushworld, we are ALL suspects.

Until proven not guilty.

And I do not know about you, jeffmoskin, but in my old age, and in my condition as a disabled veteran, I will never have a "BAG OF GOLD" big enough to have myself proven "not guilty" of something, or anything, and so .....

Over in my JUDICIAL thread, where I just was, I posted this morning Clarence Thomas' dissent in that case from New London, Connecticut where the City of New London has decided to take the houses of some people over there so that the Pfizer Corporation can allegedly be "benefitted", and last night, I had a talk with a younger person about the implications of that decision, right here where I am, since I am a person with absolutely no political clout whatsoever in my town, my county, and my state, who "owns" land that is coveted by others with power in my town, and I am now living in fear of my land being taken from me, by force, with the result that I will be displaced and destitute, as a result, and without any recourse, whatsoever, to do a thing about that, which is what Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas are now warning about, in their dissents.

When I returned to this country from Viet Nam in 1970, it was as a younger person with rocket fragments lodged near my spine as a result of a rocket grenade exploding directly behind me, and so, I knew that my "career choices" were limited by that, as a result.

I also returned with a "gut-full" of the violence, and chaos of that place, and the exploitation of those without "power" to defend themselves from having their homes burned down, by us, their possessions taken, by us, by force, their women violated, by us, for pleasure, and ultimately, their lives taken, by us, for sport, or pleasure, or for no reason at all, other than that they were there, and our fingers just had an uncontrollable urge to twitch on the trigger, right when our cross-hairs were arrayed on their heads!

Sick beyond words was I at this, and so, when I got back, I "applied" myself to what I thought was a path of where the "strong" would actually "protect" the "weak", as opposed to the Viet Nam scenario, where the strong preyed on the weak, because they could.

In the course of all of that, I received a Master's Degree in Engineering, at government expense, so as to, in the language of my own particular "grant", better myself for the task at hand.

Beyond that, I then became licensed in the State of New York as an engineer, for the purpose, as stated in the state law creating such licenses, to "protect and safguard life, health and property."

To practice in this capacity, I was to practice in "SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE" with ALL federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations governing such practice!

In my case, as a public health engineer, that meant substantial compliance with the provisions of section 603 of the New York State Public Health Law, that:

"In order to be eligible for state aid under this title, each municipality shall administer its public health programs in accordance with its approved municipal public health services plan and standards of performance established by the commissioner through rules and regulations and shall, in particular, ensure that public health services are provided in an efficient and effective manner to all persons in the municipality."

end quotes

Now, there is an assumption at law, and here, let the lawyers out there scream and holler that I am "practicing law", in here, THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION THAT when something requires a person with a certain degree of education, experience and integrity, and a license, TO DISPATCH A DUTY ON BEHALF OF THE PUBLIC GOOD, that that person has an obligation to KNOW the law, and to then, follow it, which was so, in my capacity as a public health engineer in the State of New York!

EXCEPT ...

For me to, in particular, ensure that public health services were provided in "an efficient and effective manner TO ALL PERSONS in the municipality", it was necessary for me to apply the law in such a fashion SO AS TO ALSO LIMIT THE POWER of some in the municipality, the County of Rensselaer in the State of New York, to exploit those weaker than themselves, without money or power, as I am, and the rest is now history .....

Which is one of the reasons that I have this thread, and others going in here, as a reaction to all of what happened in the State of New York when I tried to simply abide by words written on a piece of paper called LAW!

Out of all of this, I have come to observe many things that I would call INJUSTICE, and over the last thirty years, or so, I have really had to wrestle with this concept of why "GOOD" is so weak and puny in the face of "EVIL", down here on this earth of OURS!

And I still have no answer, other than that it just appears that it is!

Remember all that "God is dead" stuff, from what, back in the 1970's, I think it was?

Or was that only a regional thing, or maybe a local thing, even?

If one lives long enough, and sees whatever, as I did, it sure is easier to believe that God is dead, than anything else, and so, the only question is who killed him, and what that may mean for those of us who thought that God was greater than the evil that he must have invented, when he invented mankind, and then, put the worst of them down here on this earth of OURS to rule over us, and exploit us, as was the case in Viet Nam, then, and Rensselaer County, today!

1. Did you EVER think that the day would come when you would find yourself AGREEING with CLARENCE THOMAS???

Or Sandra Day O'Connor???

I certainly never did. But I am, in fact, agreeing.

2. God may or may not be dead. That is not for me to know. But I do know that GREED is alive and well. We used to have ways of keeping it under control. But, led by people like Michael Eisner, Corporate America is now doing to us what we were doing to the Vietnamese.

Because they CAN.

You know, jeffmoskin, I guess I never really thought about either of them, one way or the other, but now?

Right now, they appear to be all that stands between us and the out-and-out tyranny of a small but powerful minority, here in OUR America, and they, Justices O'Connor and Thomas, are losing the battle!

I find this whole business with this land-taking to be the most incredible thing that I have heard of, here in OUR America, in my life!

In almost sixty years, this is the most incredible piece of news that I have ever heard, and of all things that threaten peace and security, here in OUR America, this decision would be at the head of the list!

Justice Thomas called this decision "PERVERSE", and being at a loss for another word to replace that one, I find that I have to agree with him on that subject!

At the time of Independence from England, it was said that only one type or class of persons had no security with respect to property, and that was the class of slaves!

IT STILL IS, AND NOW, THAT IS US!

And for those who wonder at the JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY of such as George W. Bush and George Pataki, this Supreme Court decision makes it manifestly clear!

There is a race born to be masters, which is them, and then, there is everyone else, and we do not have names, only item numbers stamped on OUR foreheads!

And as for God, and who might have killed him ......

SUSETTE KELO, et al., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, et al.

on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of connecticut

[June 23, 2005]

Justice Thomas, dissenting.

Long ago, William Blackstone wrote that "the law of the land ... postpone[s] even public necessity to the sacred and inviolable rights of private property." Commentaries on the Laws of England 134-135 (1765) (hereinafter Blackstone).

The Framers embodied that principle in the Constitution, allowing the government to take property not for "public necessity," but instead for "public use." Amdt. 5.

Defying this understanding, the Court replaces the Public Use Clause with a " '[P]ublic [P]urpose' " Clause, ante, at 9-10 (or perhaps the "Diverse and Always Evolving Needs of Society" Clause, ante, at 8 (capitalization added)), a restriction that is satisfied, the Court instructs, so long as the purpose is "legitimate" and the means "not irrational," ante, at 17 (internal quotation marks omitted).

This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a "public use."

I cannot agree.

If such "economic development" takings are for a "public use," any taking is, and the Court has erased the Public Use Clause from our Constitution, as Justice O'Connor powerfully argues in dissent. Ante, at 1-2, 8-13.

I do not believe that this Court can eliminate liberties expressly enumerated in the Constitution and therefore join her dissenting opinion.

Regrettably, however, the Court's error runs deeper than this.

The deferential standard this Court has adopted for the Public Use Clause IS THEREFORE DEEPLY PERVERSE.

It encourages "those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms" to victimize the weak. Ante, at 11 (O'Connor, J., dissenting).

Those incentives have made the legacy of this Court's "public purpose" test an unhappy one.

In the 1950's, no doubt emboldened in part by the expansive understanding of "public use" this Court adopted in Berman, cities "rushed to draw plans" for downtown development. B. Frieden & L. Sagalayn, Downtown, Inc. How America Rebuilds Cities 17 (1989).

"Of all the families displaced by urban renewal from 1949 through 1963, 63 percent of those whose race was known were nonwhite, and of these families, 56 percent of nonwhites and 38 percent of whites had incomes low enough to qualify for public housing, which, however, was seldom available to them." Id., at 28.

Public works projects in the 1950's and 1960's destroyed predominantly minority communities in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Baltimore, Maryland. Id., at 28-29.

In 1981, urban planners in Detroit, Michigan, uprooted the largely "lower-income and elderly" Poletown neighborhood for the benefit of the General Motors Corporation. J. Wylie, Poletown: Community Betrayed 58 (1989).

Urban renewal projects have long been associated with the displacement of blacks; "in cities across the country, urban renewal came to be known as 'Negro removal.' " Pritchett, The "Public Menace" of Blight: Urban Renewal and the Private Uses of Eminent Domain, 21 Yale L. & Pol'y Rev. 1, 47 (2003).

Over 97 percent of the individuals forcibly removed from their homes by the "slum-clearance" project upheld by this Court in Berman were black. 348 U. S., at 30.

Regrettably, the predictable consequence of the Court's decision will be to exacerbate these effects.

***

The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court's prior cases to derive today's far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12.

When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning.

For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O'Connor's dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners' favor.

I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.

"Tables turned on CIA squad - Court papers offer glimpse of lavish life lived by agency operatives whose alleged kidnapping of a radical cleric led Italian court to seek their arrest"

By TRACY WILKINSON, Los Angeles Times
First published: Sunday, June 26, 2005

MILAN, Italy -- They ran up tabs of thousands of dollars at some of Milan's best hotels and restaurants.

They chatted easily on their cellphones and gave out passport, frequent flier and drivers license numbers when booking flights or renting cars.

And now they are fugitives.

If Italian authorities are right, a CIA operation has been exposed here that on some levels was brazen and perhaps reckless, even as it successfully spirited away a reputedly notorious Egyptian imam.

Italian arrest orders have been issued for 13 CIA operatives, and additional warrants are possible, in what might be the first time an ally of Washington, D.C., has attempted to prosecute its spies.

The suspects face kidnapping charges that carry a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

Judicial authorities said Saturday they also might seek the arrest of a senior U.S. Air Force commander who they say allowed the U.S.-run Aviano air base in northern Italy to be used in the abduction of Hassan Osama Nasr, a radical cleric better known as Abu Omar.

Italian authorities contend Abu Omar was kidnapped by the American agents two and a half years ago and taken to Egypt, where he has said he was tortured.

His whereabouts remain unknown.

Abu Omar had been long suspected of terrorist activities by Italian authorities, who had him under surveillance themselves as part of an investigation into an Islamic cell accused of recruiting and sending suicide bombers and fighters to Iraq.

The alleged former CIA station chief in Milan, a 51-year-old Honduran-born American who is among those named in the arrest warrants, is believed to have accompanied or followed Abu Omar to Egypt and to have been present for some of the interrogations, a senior Italian judicial official said Saturday.

That raises the possibility that the American agent was aware of the alleged torture, the Italian official said.

The man's movements were tracked by his use of a cellphone to make calls from Egypt in the two weeks after the disappearance of Abu Omar, the official said.

"He was the one who knew everything about Abu Omar," the official said, referring to the ex-station chief, "and so he would have been very useful in the interrogation."

Abu Omar, during a brief period of freedom in 2004, told associates he was tortured with electrical shocks to his genitals and beatings during the interrogations in Egypt.

The former station chief apparently planned on retiring in Italy and had bought a home near Turin.

Although he has been absent from Italy for several months, officials say, his wife had remained in the home, which Italian police raided Thursday night, confiscating a computer, computer disks and papers.

That he thought he could live out his golden years in Italy is another indication of the impunity with which he and the other alleged agents felt they were operating, Italian prosecutors say.

It remains unclear whether the pro-U.S. government of Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi signed off on the Milan abduction.

Several former U.S. intelligence officials consulted said it was virtually impossible the operation would have been launched without Italian permission at some level.

All told, 19 American operatives -- 13 men and six women -- mounted the mission to capture Abu Omar, according to the warrants and other court documents reviewed by the Los Angeles Times, as well as interviews with several Italian officials involved in the case.

The abduction was an example of the United States' "extraordinary rendition" program, a highly controversial tactic used with increasing frequency since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in the United States to pursue alleged terrorists.

Dozens of people have been seized by CIA operatives in foreign lands and bundled off to third-world countries, according to intelligence officials and human rights organizations.

The Milan crew seemed to have made little effort to keep a low profile.

Although much of the information they provided might have been false, they seemed to have left a trail worthy of Hansel and Gretel.

Arriving individually or in pairs during the weeks leading up to the abduction in February 2003, they checked into some of Milan's finest hotels: the $450-a-night Prince of Savoy on Milan's grand Piazza della Repubblica, the Westin Palace, the Milan Hilton.

They ate at good restaurants and rented cellphones and cars.

They offered up their frequent-flier account numbers, as well as their passports, credit cards and drivers licenses.

Many of the names, home U.S. addresses and telephone numbers contained in the indictment appear to be false.

In hotel bills alone, the group ran up a tab of $150,000, the documents indicate.

The team divided up, with six of the agents conducting reconnaissance and others intercepting Abu Omar as he walked from his Milan home to a mosque.

They loaded him into a truck and sped off to the Aviano base, about four hours away, Italian prosecutors allege.

As they traveled, one of the agents used a cellphone to call a commander at the Aviano base every half hour or so, as though to alert him to their progress, Italian prosecutors said.

That senior officer, Col. Joseph Romano, has since left Italy, but prosecutors said Saturday they want to question him and are considering ordering his arrest.

"We suspect he knew what the CIA agents were doing," a senior Italian official said.

Once the rendition was completed, several of the agents traveled to Venice for a celebration, also at a luxurious five-star hotel, the court papers say.

Four others took a vacation along the Mediterranean coast.

Italian judicial officials are perhaps most angry with the American operation because it ruined their own efforts to crack the cell and arrest numerous terror suspects in Italy.

Prosecutor Armando Spataro is seeking the extradition of the suspects, and the warrants have been forwarded to European police agencies, meaning the named men and women could be arrested anywhere in Europe.

But Italian judicial officials acknowledge it is unlikely a single CIA agent ever will be brought to trial.

The U.S. government has refused to comment on or even acknowledge the warrants publicly.

"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.

The verbal strike he aimed at liberals and liberalism during a speech to the New York Conservative Party on Wednesday night came straight out of the direct-mail manual: pithy, provocative and designed to energize one side by torching the other.

Rove's flamboyant remarks -- in which he roused conservatives by saying liberals prefer "therapy and understanding" for terrorists instead of retaliation -- has put President Bush's top strategist back on stage.

It's a place where he has seemed increasingly comfortable of late.

Through much of last year, by contrast, Rove remained largely in the shadows, avoiding on-the-record interviews or television appearances and the controversy that inevitably would have followed.

A political lightning rod, whom Democrats accused of unfairly injecting the war on terrorism into the 2002 midterm elections, Rove let others in the campaign attack the Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), and explain Bush's strategy to the outside world.

But the president's reelection victory liberated Rove and marked the beginning of a new chapter in his career.

On the afternoon after the election, Bush paid tribute to the outsize role his longtime adviser and friend of 30 years had played, publicly identifying him as the "architect" of a victory that came only after one of the most hard-fought campaigns in modern presidential politics -- a victory even some White House officials doubted would happen, given problems in Iraq and public concerns about the economy.

Rove was rewarded with a new title (while retaining the "senior adviser" designation he carried from the first term) and the first-floor West Wing office down the hall from the Oval Office that other deputy chiefs of staff have used.

Long a policy wonk in a political operative's skin, Rove always had significant involvement in issues during the first Bush term.

Now, that role has been made formal, with expanded administrative powers and the explicit authority to range widely into a variety of policy areas.

His colleagues see him as one of the administration's most potent public advocates on behalf of Bush's major initiatives.

"Karl is a key asset to this White House," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said in an e-mail message.

"His keen insight into the president's thinking, grasp of a wide range of complex issues and ability to speak beyond the Washington Beltway, make Karl a valuable messenger for the president's second-term agenda."

In his new role, Rove has become more visible and somewhat more accessible.

He has made himself available to White House reporters and has appeared more frequently on television.

When he went to the New York Times for an interview earlier this year, he showed up with flowers for columnist Maureen Dowd, part of a running inside joke with one of Bush's most acerbic critics.

Rove speaks on behalf of the president not just on the politics of the moment but also on the administration's policy agenda.

He has been at the center of the administration's efforts to restructure Social Security, and he will be deeply involved in the battle to confirm a new Supreme Court justice if there is a vacancy soon, as is widely expected.

Having done what few political strategists have done -- oversee two successful campaigns for the White House -- Rove has become a bona fide celebrity within the Republican Party and one of the most sought-after speakers by GOP audiences.

A White House official said Rove now can attract about as much money for a candidate or the party as Vice President Cheney, behind only the president -- an unprecedented capability for a White House staff hand.

A more public role has hardly dulled Rove's combative edge.

From the first days of Bush's presidential campaign in 1999 to the present, he has picked the fights and shaped the arguments used to advance his boss's agenda or political ambitions.

It was Rove who shared with Bush the passion to promote personal or private accounts as part of Social Security restructuring, a battle that has proved more difficult than many White House officials envisioned.

It was also Rove who helped shape the strategy of renominating a series of appellate court judges blocked by Democrats during Bush's first term.

Within the White House, Rove is regarded as a happy warrior, well-liked by colleagues for his humor and ebullient personality.

To the opposition, however, Rove's remarks to the New York state Conservative Party last week were simply fresh evidence of why they loathe him.

Congressional Democrats, most of whom supported Bush after Sept. 11, 2001, denounced the speech as deceitful and typical of the low-blow tactics they say have marked Rove's career.

What is still unclear is how deliberate Rove was being in prompting an uproar with his comments.

With public opinion on Iraq at an ebb and the president preparing to deliver a major speech Tuesday on the subject, Rove's remarks seemed in part an effort to redraw lines to how they were in last year's presidential campaign.

Bush succeeded then by casting himself as the embodiment of strength and resolve, and portraying Kerry as the symbol of weakness and vacillation.

Rove's speech -- a broader meditation on the rise of conservatism and the decline of liberalism -- is one that often animates his public remarks, White House officials noted, and is a topic he has both studied and tried to influence throughout his long career in politics.

But this was the first time his inflammatory language about liberals and Sept. 11 drew such wide notice.

The White House reaction to the uproar also bore the indelible stamp of Rove: no apologies and no retractions, and all engines in the GOP spin machine churning in concert.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan and Bartlett defended Rove from the briefing room and on several morning television programs, and Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman jumped in with customary aggressiveness.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), in a bit of a role reversal, came to the defense of Rove by repeating some of the most provocative lines to College Republicans and saying, "That's not slander."

"That's the truth."

The National Republican Senatorial Committee sent out an e-mail fundraising appeal proclaiming "Karl Rove Is Right."

GOP officials said Rove had criticized liberals, not Democrats or the Democratic Party, a distinction that many Democrats found unpersuasive.

Kerry stoked his e-mail supporters, asking them to sign a letter to Bush asking him to "thoroughly reject Karl Rove's purposeful attack on the patriotism of those who dare ask the tough questions that best protect American troops."

While many Democrats reacted with rage when they first heard about Rove's remarks, they were more mixed in their view of whether he had made the mistake of going too far or had cleverly baited a trap for them by opening up an argument on political turf that long has favored the Republicans.

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.?

"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

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."

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 ......

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.

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

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.

"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.

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

"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.

"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.

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!

"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.

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?

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?

"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.

Ruth Conniff questioning Sen. Boxer, The Progressive July 2005

Q: What makes you stay hopeful that you can make change?

Barbara Boxer:

I’m an optimist, and I think you have to be an optimist to be in politics.

And the thing is, it’s all about growing up.

The day you realize you’re a grownup is the day you realize that you have to do something.

When we’re kids, we don’t have to do anything.

Then all of a sudden you realize, if I want this to be better, I’ve got to do something.

Every American at some point has got to make the connection between their own hopes and dreams and who is elected to office.

It’s essential.

It’s very easy to pull the covers up over your head and say, “I can’t handle it."

"Too much.”

But we just have to handle it and we have to accept that it’s our job.

Each of us.

Nobody is going to take care of it.

Barbara Boxer is not going to make it all better.

It’s got to be everybody.

Everybody in the progressive community.

Everybody has to take part.

Top Ten Bush Goals For His Second Term

10. Fewer idiotic remarks; more hilarious pratfalls.

9. Add mother Barbara to Mount Rushmore.

8. Combine Nebraska and Kansas into new state: Nebransas.

7. Spice up boring state dinners with tasty fish sticks!

6. Improve communication skills from poor to fair.

5. Catch up on his "Smokey And The Bandit" collection.

4. Get Ray Stevens to write some funny lyrics for "Hail To The Chief"

3. Ride every roller coaster in the country.

2. Install remote-activated button in Oval Office so he can blow stuff up right from his desk!

1. Begin vote-rigging process for Jeb's White House run in 2008.

Vive La France!

France Will Get Fusion Reactor To Seek a Future Energy Source
By CRAIG S. SMITH

PARIS, June 28 - An international consortium announced Tuesday that France would be the site of the world's first large-scale, sustainable nuclear fusion reactor, an estimated $10 billion project that many scientists see as crucial to solving the world's future energy needs.

"It is a great success for France, for Europe and for all the partners in ITER," President Jacques Chirac said in a statement released after the six-member consortium of the United States, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea and the European Union chose the country as the site for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.

Japan, which had lobbied hard for the project, dropped out of the bidding in the last few days and ceded to France. The consortium agreed in Moscow to build the project at Cadarache in southern France.

Nuclear fusion is the process by which atomic nuclei are forced together, releasing huge amounts of energy, as with the sun or a hydrogen bomb. The process has long been studied as a potential energy source that would be far cleaner than burning fossil fuels or even nuclear fission, which is used in nuclear reactors today but produces dangerous radioactive waste.

While the physics of nuclear fusion have long been understood, the engineering required to control the process remains difficult.

The logistics of coordinating construction in a six-member consortium has presented an even bigger challenge. The project was started in 1988 but bogged down in bickering over where the reactor's design team would be based. A compromise split the team between Japan, Germany and the United States, but the consortium struggled over where the reactor would be built.

Canada, Spain, France and Japan were originally in contention for the reactor site, but a December 2003 ministerial meeting to pick a winner ended in a deadlock, with the United States, Japan and South Korea backing the Japanese site and the other three consortium members pushing for the site in France.

Recently, Japan agreed to relinquish its bid in return for the consortium's commitment to build a $1 billion materials testing center there.

The consortium also promised that any subsequent fusion reactor built by the consortium would be built in Japan. It is a significant concession, because the first reactor is only a demonstration plant meant to prove that fusion can be harnessed as an economically viable energy source. A second reactor would probably be a prototype meant for commercial power generation.

With the agreement, the consortium can now proceed with the drafting of a deal on the construction and operation of the reactor. ITER officials said they hoped that the accord would be signed by the end of the year, allowing work on the reactor to begin next year and ground to be broken at the Cadarache site in 2008. Current plans foresee the reactor operating in 2016.

Construction of the reactor is estimated to cost $5 billion, with its operation costing another estimated $5 billion over 20 years, according to ITER. The host country is expected to cover half of those costs, with the other five partners each paying 10 percent. Those numbers are based on current dollars, however, meaning the actual cost of the reactor will be much higher by the time it is completed.

Many experts also predict that construction could take much longer than now foreseen given the difficulty of coordinating multiple suppliers of costly and highly technical components in many countries. The agreement leaves open the possibility that still more countries may take part in the project. India, for example, has expressed interest.

The final agreement is expected to include provisions that would require consortium members that cause delays to pay compensation.

The fusion project has stirred controversy since it was first proposed in the 1980's, with many scientists arguing that such "big science" will rob financing from the "little science" of individual researchers who have often produced the world's most striking scientific breakthroughs.

But criticism has been drowned out by the growing recognition of fusion's potential as a solution to the world's looming energy crisis.

"We all know oil and gas depletion will start in 2030 or 2035," said Peter Haug, secretary general of the European Nuclear Society.

He said most experts agreed that because of technical difficulties, renewable energy sources like wind or solar power would never provide more than 15 or 20 percent of the world's energy needs. There is enough coal in the earth to keep the world running for centuries, but at an unacceptable environmental cost. As oil and gas fields peter out, Mr. Haug and others say, the world will be forced to turn to nuclear energy.

"We don't think fusion will remove fission from the production scheme," Mr. Haug said. "But it will probably be used along with fission because of the growing energy needs of man."

Still, few scientists expect a fusion reactor to generate commercially viable electricity before mid-century, if by then.

In principle, using fusion to produce energy is easy: take hydrogen atoms and press them together to form helium. The helium is a bit lighter than its constituent hydrogen pieces, and by Einstein's E=mc2 equation, that tiny change in mass results in a large release of energy.

At the center of the sun, where temperatures reach nearly 30 million degrees Fahrenheit and hydrogen atoms are pushed together at ultra-high pressures, fusion generates light and heat. But turning fusion into a viable source of energy requires figuring out how to recreate on Earth the conditions at the sun's heart.

Instead of ordinary hydrogen, fusion reactors use heavier versions, known as deuterium and tritium, that fuse together more easily. Experimental fusion reactors have been able to heat gases to temperatures of hundreds of millions of degrees. The harder task, however, is confining the hot gas.

ITER follows the same approach used by most large-scale fusion experiments since the 1970's, using doughnut-shaped magnetic fields to confine the gas, but it will be the first large enough to explore how well fusion reactions can be sustained.

In order to succeed, the ITER project must demonstrate that it can create a fuel cycle in the reactor that will produce excess tritium, the reactor's fuel, from a "blanket" of lithium lining the reactor chamber. As neutrons thrown off from the fusion reaction strike lithium atoms, they produce tritium. But in order for the reactor to be viable, consortium officials say, the reactor must produce more tritium than it consumes.

Even fusion proponents concede that the process is decades away from practical use. A timeline published on ITER's Web site foresees a larger demonstration project that would begin operating around 2030. A commercial fusion reactor would follow around 2050.

ITER's interim leader, Yasuo Shimomura, said the project's next step would be to appoint a director general who could start the complicated procurement process.

The consortium has already spent $700 million on scale models of the reactor's major components, and "in this sense, there is no fundamental technical problem," Dr. Shimomura said in a phone call from ITER's offices in Garching, Germany. "But the machine is very complicated, and the procurement will be done between six parties, and this is not a small experimental device, it is a real nuclear device, so quality control will be very important."

In the meantime, the fusion project means money for the industries and scientific sectors contributing to it. Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin of France said it would create 4,000 jobs and bolster research and development there.

"It's brings us great joy and great pride," said Pascale Amenc Antoni, director of the French Atomic Energy Commission's Cadarache Center, where the reactor will be built. She said it also recognized the work the center has already carried out at its nuclear fusion research facility.

Kenneth Chang contributed reporting from New York for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/29/internat...agewanted=print

At least the French produce 80 percent of their electricity from nuclear power. And they are looking to the future.

Un bon idee, n'est ce pas?

Interesting, as always, jeffmoskin!

And just this morning, on the radio, I heard some "chat" about what must be this same project!

My engineer's "ears" perked up when I heard the word "theorectically ..." used by the newsreader.

In theory, which is science, everything is possible, except bumblebees flying, of course, because everyone knows they are aerodynamically unstable, but outside of them, of course, in theory, everything is possible!

Then enters in reality, and thermodynamics, and actuality can be a far different thing, and engineers are supposed to know that difference, which is at the heart and soul of engineering licensing examinations!

FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: You can't get something for nothing!

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS: You can't break even!

"AP: U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports"

By LARRY MARGASAK, Associated Press Writer

Wed Jun 29, 2:09 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Labor Department worked for more than a year to maintain secrecy for studies that were critical of working conditions in Central America, the region the Bush administration wants in a new trade pact.

The contractor hired by the department in 2002 to conduct the studies has become a major opponent of the administration's proposed Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.

The government-paid studies concluded that countries proposed for free-trade status have poor working environments and fail to protect workers' rights.

The department dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to government and contractor documents reviewed by The Associated Press.

The Senate Finance Committee, which approved the agreement by a voice vote Wednesday, sent it to the full Senate for consideration this week or after the Independence Day recess.

The contractor is the International Labor Rights Fund.

In a summary of its findings, the organization wrote, "In practice, labor laws on the books in Central America are not sufficient to deter employers from violations, as actual sanctions for violations of the law are weak or nonexistent."

The conclusions contrast with the administration's arguments that Central American countries have made enough progress on such issues to warrant the free-trade deal.

The administration and its congressional supporters say eliminating trade barriers for U.S. products would open new markets in Central American for U.S. farmers and manufacturers.

Critics say the deal would allow serious labor violations to continue in the countries covered by the pact — Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic.

Hoping to lure enough Democratic votes to win passages, U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman this month promised to spend money and arrange an international conference to ensure "the best agreement ever negotiated by the United States on labor rights."

Behind the scenes, the Labor Department began as early as spring 2004 to block public release of the country-by-country reports.

The department instructed its contractor to remove the reports from its Web site, ordered it to retrieve paper copies before they became public, banned release of new information from the reports, and even told the contractor it could not discuss the studies with outsiders.

The department has now worked out a deal with the contractor to make the reports public, provided there is no mention of the federal agency or government funding.

At the same time, the administration began a pre-emptive campaign to undercut the study's conclusions.

Used as talking points by trade-pact supporters, a Labor Department document accuses the contractor of writing a report filled with "unsubstantiated" statements and "biased attacks, not the facts."

The contractor's deputy director, Bama Athreya, blamed U.S. Trade Representative officials for circulating the document and citing passages that won't be included in the final versions of the reports.

One lawmaker said he was shocked that a federal agency charged with protecting the rights of Americans workers would go to such lengths to block the public from seeing its own contractor's concerns before Congress votes on the agreement.

"You would think if any agency in our government would care about this, it would be the Labor Department," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., said.

Dirk Fillpot, spokesman for the Labor Department's Bureau of International Labor Affairs, said the agency and an independent evaluator concluded the contractor "failed to meet the academic rigor expected to fulfill its contract" and the relationship was terminated June 10.

The competitively bid contract totaled $937,000.

Fillpot said $250,000 will be refunded to the Treasury.

Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who supports the trade agreement, said he is familiar with drafts of the reports and believes they will be "widely dismissed as a fraud."

He accused the contractor of producing "a propaganda piece" and concealing "its rabid anti-CAFTA bias."

Athreya, the contractor official, has testified in Congress against the agreement.

The group's Internet site has a link to a coalition trying to defeat the pact.

Some of the studies came within a whisker of widespread release in March 2004, when the labor-rights group posted them briefly on its Internet site.

The Labor Department quickly and successfully demanded the reports be removed on grounds they were not approved by the agency.

Officials also demanded the group retrieve a limited number of paper copies that were distributed at a hearing of a Latin American human rights body.

Shortly after that incident, Rep. Sander Levin, D-Mich., began a yearlong effort to pry the studies from the department through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The department rejected his request until two months ago, when Levin received — and released — early drafts of the reports.
___

On the net:

Read related documents at http://wid.ap.org/documents/cafta/index.html

International Labor Rights Fund: http://www.laborrights.org/

Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov/

Entropy, jeffmoskin!

Entropy!

That old bug-a-boo, entropy!

Disroder increases as a function of the intensity of the effort being made to achieve something, like a nuclear source of power to fuel an already entropic life style, and we engineers, who are now little more than a pack of whores, well, what we are supposed to do is to bow down to consumerism, and to do that, we are to pretend that there is no entropy!

Since everything is possible in theory, and because people want everything, regardless, then give it to them, and don't start making excuses like entropy!

There is no Joule heating!

That is a lie cooked up by "enviros" who want everyone to have to live in caves.

No "I squared x R losses" in electric transmission lines!

No, no, no, it just does not happen!

There is no waste heat coming out of nuclear reactors that is heating up portions of Lake Ontario to 75 degress Fahrenheit, or more!

Oh, no, no, no, no, no!

There are not tons and tons of heated water vapor coming out of nuclear power station cooling towers on a daily basis and carrying up into the upper reaches of the atmosphere, where it does not belong, and where that water vapor is "unstable", which means that it is subject to both condensation, and gravity, and like the rock I threw up in the air, all those years ago, it is actually coming back down, so watch your eye, sonny boy!

"Oh, no, Livyjr, as engineers, it is our sacred duty to give things to people that they want, and it is not up to us to aseess such things as environmental harm caused by our own negligence!"

"That, Livyjr, is why we have politicians, here in OUR America, to make those decisions for us!"

"We are here to do what we are told!"

And so it is ....

And now, we have succeeded in two things, which are leading to a third, which is a concomitant of the first two:

a) We have built the world's biggest pyramid;

b) We have built the world's biggest pyramid upside down, so that ours stands on its point; and

c) Pyramids built to stand on their points are inherently unstable, and so come crashing down!

And what is the solution when you are beset by entropy?

Yes, folks, that's right - go faster still, because, there is no entropy!

It's all a lie!

How do I know?

I got it straight from a REPUBLICAN lawyer myself, and since they are the real "scientific" experts .....

"Storm Expert: Hurricane Danger on the Rise"

By RANDOLPH E. SCHMID, Associated Press Writer
Wed Jun 29, 6:24 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Hurricane activity has increased and is likely to remain high for a decade or more, the head of the National Hurricane Center said Wednesday.

From the 1970s to the mid-1990s the number of hurricanes was low, Max Mayfield told the Senate Commerce Science and Transportation Committee, but now frequency is increasing "and this period of heightened activity could last another 10 to 20 years."

Memories are still fresh of the four hurricanes that battered Florida last year.

Forecasters predict 13 named storms, including seven hurricanes, could possibly threaten the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts this year.

Indeed, Tropical Depression Bret is currently producing heavy rains in Mexico.

Mayfield said the cyclic increase in tropical storms is made more dangerous because of the growth in coastal populations in recent years.

An estimated 85 percent of coastal residents have never experienced a major hurricane, he said.

Mayfield said that even though forecasts and warnings have improved lately, being safe from such storms also requires personal responsibility.

"It really doesn't matter if you make a perfect forecast — if you don't get people to listen to you it's all for nothing," he said.

People in coastal areas need to have a plan and need to know where the nearest shelter is and what the evacuation plans are for their area, he said.

Asbury H. Sallenger of the U.S. Geological Survey added that the lack of experience with storms in recent years has resulted in construction of buildings that may not be able to stand up to them.

He pointed out the collapse of a five-story building in Orange Beach, Ala., when it was undermined by Hurricane Ivan.

Of special concern are the Florida Keys and New Orleans, where many people live in low-lying or below-sea-level areas that cannot be easily evacuated, Mayfield said.

"You need to make friends in high places."

"The problem is, neither of these areas have high places," he said.

Asked about the possibility of vertical evacuation in high-rise buildings in New Orleans, Mayfield said it is a refuge of last resort if people can't be evacuated.

After a major storm the power will be out, the water will be out and emergency personnel won't be able to care for thousands of people stuck in high rises, he said.

Overall, hurricanes claim 20 lives and cause $5.1 billion in damage in the average year.

Those figures can jump many times in the event of a major storm like Andrew or Hugo.

Dennis McCarthy, director of the office of climate, water and weather services, told the committee that in a typical year there are 1,300 tornadoes in the United States, killing 58 people and causing $1.1 billion in damage.

Floods account for $5.2 billion in damage and 80 deaths, he said, while lightning adds 53 fatalities annually.

A recent study indicated that modern Doppler radar has sharply reduced the tornado death toll.

McCarthy said the Weather Service is currently investigating radar improvements that could make forecasts even better.
___

On the Net:

National Weather Service: http://www.nws.noaa.gov

National Hurricane Center: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov

U.S. Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov

Ah well, as we all know there is no "perfect" energy source. Early man discovered fire, and as we all know the burning of wood has some enviromental side effects to the atmosphere. Also, the Brits completely denuded their forests in the middle ages. If some smart bloke had not discovered that peat could be a substitute, the entire island could have been decimated.

We might not even be here. Or we might be Indians. Hmmm. Interesting.

Burning wood is better than freezing to death
Peat is better than wood
Coal is better than peat
Oil is better than coal
Gas is better than oil
Fission is better than gas
Fusion will be better than fission.


There, jeffmoskin's hierarchy of energy choices.


All have drawbacks; the laws of thermodynamics cannot be bought off by O J's lawyers. However, with 6 million souls on the planet, and with energy a necessity for personal lifestyle improvement, we are between Iraq and a hard place.

Nearly thirty years ago, during an era marked by uncertainties witht the future supply of oil, Jimmy Carter gave a TV speech laying out the facts and telling the truth: here is what he said - - -


Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly.
It is a problem we will not solve in the next few years, and it is likely to get progressively worse through the rest of this century.
We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren.
We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us.
Two days from now, I will present my energy proposals to the Congress. Its members will be my partners and they have already given me a great deal of valuable advice. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices.
The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation.
Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy.
I know that some of you may doubt that we face real energy shortages. The 1973 gasoline lines are gone, and our homes are warm again. But our energy problem is worse tonight than it was in 1973 or a few weeks ago in the dead of winter. It is worse because more waste has occurred, and more time has passed by without our planning for the future. And it will get worse every day until we act.
The oil and natural gas we rely on for 75 percent of our energy are running out. In spite of increased effort, domestic production has been dropping steadily at about six percent a year. Imports have doubled in the last five years. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. Unless profound changes are made to lower oil consumption, we now believe that early in the 1980s the world will be demanding more oil that it can produce.
The world now uses about 60 million barrels of oil a day and demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. Obviously, this cannot continue.
We must look back in history to understand our energy problem. Twice in the last several hundred years there has been a transition in the way people use energy.
The first was about 200 years ago, away from wood -- which had provided about 90 percent of all fuel -- to coal, which was more efficient. This change became the basis of the Industrial Revolution.
The second change took place in this century, with the growing use of oil and natural gas. They were more convenient and cheaper than coal, and the supply seemed to be almost without limit. They made possible the age of automobile and airplane travel. Nearly everyone who is alive today grew up during this age and we have never known anything different.
Because we are now running out of gas and oil, we must prepare quickly for a third change, to strict conservation and to the use of coal and permanent renewable energy sources, like solar power.
The world has not prepared for the future. During the 1950s, people used twice as much oil as during the 1940s. During the 1960s, we used twice as much as during the 1950s. And in each of those decades, more oil was consumed than in all of mankind's previous history.
World consumption of oil is still going up. If it were possible to keep it rising during the 1970s and 1980s by 5 percent a year as it has in the past, we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.
I know that many of you have suspected that some supplies of oil and gas are being withheld. You may be right, but suspicions about oil companies cannot change the fact that we are running out of petroleum.
All of us have heard about the large oil fields on Alaska's North Slope. In a few years when the North Slope is producing fully, its total output will be just about equal to two years' increase in our nation's energy demand.
Each new inventory of world oil reserves has been more disturbing than the last. World oil production can probably keep going up for another six or eight years. But some time in the 1980s it can't go up much more. Demand will overtake production. We have no choice about that.
But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden.
One choice is to continue doing what we have been doing before. We can drift along for a few more years.
Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. Our cars would continue to be too large and inefficient. Three-quarters of them would continue to carry only one person -- the driver -- while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste.
We can continue using scarce oil and natural to generate electricity, and continue wasting two-thirds of their fuel value in the process.
If we do not act, then by 1985 we will be using 33 percent more energy than we do today.
We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.
Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.
Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price.
If we wait, and do not act, then our factories will not be able to keep our people on the job with reduced supplies of fuel. Too few of our utilities will have switched to coal, our most abundant energy source.
We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.
We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.
If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.
But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time.
That is the concept of the energy policy we will present on Wednesday. Our national energy plan is based on ten fundamental principles.
The first principle is that we can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.
The second principle is that healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
The third principle is that we must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.
The fourth principle is that we must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.
The fifth principle is that we must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.
The sixth principle, and the cornerstone of our policy, is to reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.
The seventh principle is that prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.
The eighth principle is that government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.
The ninth principle is that we must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.
The tenth principle is that we must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.
These ten principles have guided the development of the policy I would describe to you and the Congress on Wednesday.
Our energy plan will also include a number of specific goals, to measure our progress toward a stable energy system.
These are the goals we set for 1985:
--Reduce the annual growth rate in our energy demand to less than two percent.
--Reduce gasoline consumption by ten percent below its current level.
--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, from a potential level of 16 million barrels to six million barrels a day.
--Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply.
--Increase our coal production by about two thirds to more than 1 billion tons a year.
--Insulate 90 percent of American homes and all new buildings.
--Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses.
We will monitor our progress toward these goals year by year. Our plan will call for stricter conservation measures if we fall behind.
I cant tell you that these measures will be easy, nor will they be popular. But I think most of you realize that a policy which does not ask for changes or sacrifices would not be an effective policy.
This plan is essential to protect our jobs, our environment, our standard of living, and our future.
Whether this plan truly makes a difference will be decided not here in Washington, but in every town and every factory, in every home an don every highway and every farm.
I believe this can be a positive challenge. There is something especially American in the kinds of changes we have to make. We have been proud, through our history of being efficient people.
We have been proud of our leadership in the world. Now we have a chance again to give the world a positive example.
And we have been proud of our vision of the future. We have always wanted to give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act.
I've given you some of the principles of the plan.
I am sure each of you will find something you don't like about the specifics of our proposal. It will demand that we make sacrifices and changes in our lives. To some degree, the sacrifices will be painful -- but so is any meaningful sacrifice. It will lead to some higher costs, and to some greater inconveniences for everyone.
But the sacrifices will be gradual, realistic and necessary. Above all, they will be fair. No one will gain an unfair advantage through this plan. No one will be asked to bear an unfair burden. We will monitor the accuracy of data from the oil and natural gas companies, so that we will know their true production, supplies, reserves, and profits.
The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.
We can be sure that all the special interest groups in the country will attack the part of this plan that affects them directly. They will say that sacrifice is fine, as long as other people do it, but that their sacrifice is unreasonable, or unfair, or harmful to the country. If they succeed, then the burden on the ordinary citizen, who is not organized into an interest group, would be crushing.
There should be only one test for this program: whether it will help our country.
Other generation of Americans have faced and mastered great challenges. I have faith that meeting this challenge will make our own lives even richer. If you will join me so that we can work together with patriotism and courage, we will again prove that our great nation can lead the world into an age of peace, independence and freedom.
Jimmy Carter, "The President's Proposed Energy Policy." 18 April 1977. Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. XXXXIII, No. 14, May 1, 1977, pp. 418-420.

Did we listen? No

Did we re-elect him? No

We elected a B- movie actor instead, with GHWB as his "spook" aide to handle the dirty work.

"What ye sow also shall ye reap."

I grew up with wood and coal, and now, I am back to wood, and I should make a place to store coal, and then I will burn that, as well!

Over the years, I have been making "Pollards" out of my cherry, maple and oak trees, which is where you cut down a big tree, and then, shape the stump so that it grows sprouts, which become trees, themselves, and where you had one tree, off that same stump, you now have four trees!

And I live pretty simple!

When I am not in a room, I don't leave the lights on, and I don't have the outside of my house all lit up like a movie matinee, either, and so .....

And speaking of George W. Bush, the REPUBLICANS, knee-jerking, incompetence and entropy, all in the same sentence, jeffmoskin ......

"Army recruits shortfall blamed on Iraq war critics

By Vicki Allen

31 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the Iraq war and the Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies.

He did not name the senators.

Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker urged members of Congress to use "your considerable influence to explain to the American people and to those that are influencers out there how important it is for our young people to serve this nation at a time like this."

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June.

With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican.

Facing flagging support for the Iraq war that has killed about 1,750 U.S. forces, President Bush in a speech on Tuesday acknowledged the nation's doubts about the strategy but insisted the operation was worthwhile and portrayed Iraq as a key battlefield against terrorists.

Bush himself made a pitch for military service.

"We live in freedom because every generation has produced patriots willing to serve a cause greater than themselves."

"Those who serve today are taking their rightful place among the greatest generations that have worn our nation's uniform," he said.

While Bush has rejected calls for a timetable to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq, Virginia Republican Sen. John Warner, the committee chairman, pressed the Pentagon to declassify information on progress of training Iraq's forces, considered a key indicator of when U.S. forces can return home.

"The American taxpayer put a tremendous investment in that retraining and the equipping," Warner said.

With that information, he said, "We can better translate where we are in terms of hopefully providing them (Iraqis) with trained individuals and equipment to eventually replace our forces."

Democrats questioned the Pentagon officials on how the Iraq war has strained the military's readiness for other potential conflicts and on delays in providing troops with adequate armor against car bombs and other explosives.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat, said while Bush urged Americans "to raise flags" in honor of U.S. troops in Iraq, the president did not assure troops "they will have the equipment they need to fight the war, and he should have."

Schoomaker acknowledged up to 25 percent of the Humvees in Iraq still had the low grade of protective armor, but he said all should be equipped with higher grade armor in September.

He also agreed that in some cases the level of readiness of units was below desired levels because of the strain of the Iraq conflict and the Army's efforts to streamline its operations.

In his testimony, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Michael Hagee said readiness for battalion and squadron-sized Marine units had dropped by 40 percent because of the priority put on sustaining units in Iraq at the expense of the units that had rotated out of the war.

June 30, 2005

"For First Time in Months, Army Meets Its Recruiting Goal"

By ERIC SCHMITT

WASHINGTON, June 29 - For the first time since January, the Army met its recruiting goal this month, but it still faces what some senior Army officials say is a nearly insurmountable hurdle to meet the service's annual quota.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a public forum at the Pentagon on Wednesday that the Army exceeded its June goal, but he gave no details.

Senior Army officials said in interviews earlier in the day that the Army exceeded the quota of 5,650 recruits by about 500 people.

The Army Reserve also made its first monthly goal since last December, the officials said.

That still leaves the active-duty Army about 7,800 recruits behind schedule to send 80,000 enlistees to boot camp with only three months to go in the recruiting year that ends on Sept. 30.

The Army has not missed its annual enlistment quota since 1999, when a strong economy made recruiters' lives miserable.

Army officials publicly insist that they can still reach their annual goal, especially with hundreds of new recruiters on the street for the peak summer recruiting month, armed with big enlistment bonuses and greater leeway to recruit more high-school dropouts and lower-achieving applicants.

But privately, senior Army officials voiced skepticism on Wednesday that the Army could make up the deficit.

"If you ask people point-blank, we just don't have enough time left to make it," said an Army official who has been briefed on the June figures, but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the Pentagon does not plan to release them publicly until early July.

Another senior Army officer, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said, "If we make it, it'll be by the skin of our teeth."

Recruiting woes plaguing the Army and the Marine Corps, partly over parental concerns about the war in Iraq, have raised such concern among members of Congress that the Senate Armed Services Committee has summoned General Myers and the chiefs of the Army and the Marines to testify on Thursday.

Of the 139,000 troops in Iraq, the Army provides about 105,000 and the Marines about 22,000.

"We face a challenge in recruiting right now, especially for the ground forces like the Army and the Marine Corps," Gen. Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, told the committee at a separate hearing Wednesday on his nomination to succeed General Myers as chairman.

For example, Marine recruiters are spending an average of 12 hours per recruit they enlist, up from about 3 hours a year or so ago, Marine officials say.

General Pace noted that while recruiting numbers were down, re-enlistments are above averages in past years, making up some of the gap.

"Those within uniform serving this country get it," General Pace said.

In his nationally televised speech on Tuesday night, President Bush ended his address with a recruiting pitch.

"I thank those of you who have re-enlisted in an hour when your country needs you," Mr. Bush said.

"And to those watching tonight who are considering a military career, there is no higher calling than service in our armed forces."

Then why didn't Dick Cheney or Karl Rove ever serve then, Mr. Bush?

Analysis

"Bush Words Reflect Public Opinion Strategy"

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 30, 2005; Page A01

When President Bush confidently predicts victory in Iraq and admits no mistakes, admirers see steely resolve and critics see exasperating stubbornness.

But the president's full-speed-ahead message articulated in this week's prime-time address also reflects a purposeful strategy based on extensive study of public opinion about how to maintain support for a costly and problem-plagued military mission.

The White House recently brought onto its staff one of the nation's top academic experts on public opinion during wartime, whose studies are now helping Bush craft his message two years into a war with no easy end in sight.

Behind the president's speech is a conviction among White House officials that the battle for public opinion on Iraq hinges on their success in convincing Americans that, whatever their views of going to war in the first place, the conflict there must and can be won.

"There's going to be an appetite by some to relitigate past decisions," said White House counselor Dan Bartlett.

But the studies consulted by the White House show that in the long run public support for war is "mostly linked to whether you think you can prevail," he added, which is one reason it is important for Bush to explain "why he thinks it's working and why he thinks it'll win."

For Bush, Bartlett emphasized, the public rhetoric matches the private conviction that his strategy will succeed.

But it also leaves Bush in the difficult position of balancing confidence and credibility.

The more optimism Bush expresses, the more criticism he draws from Congress and commentators that he is not facing the reality of a tenacious insurgency that, according to U.S. military commanders, remains as potent today as six months ago.

Bush has never been one to dwell publicly on past miscalculations in Iraq, on such issues as weapons of mass destruction, the reception forecast for invading U.S. troops and the durability of the armed resistance after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

As he continues to tout progress in the face of near-daily car bombings, critics say, his standing with the public will continue to slip.

"Unless they're more candid with the American people, there's no reason to think the drift in public opinion is going to turn around," said P.J. Crowley of the Center for American Progress, a retired Air Force colonel who was a national security aide in the Clinton White House.

Bush adversaries insisted yesterday that they remain no less committed to victory and denied engaging in defeatism.

"I really do think it's winnable, but you've got to keep the American people following with you," Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.) said in an interview.

"That's why I urged them to give the speech."

"He told us the why."

"He didn't tell us the how."

"Business as usual won't get us there."

"I think he has to change some policy or alter some policy."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), who has also been highly critical of Bush's handling of the war effort, rushed out a statement after Tuesday night's speech asserting his own confidence in victory.

"I have had differences with the administration over the planning and execution of our postwar policy in Iraq," he said.

"However, we all are working toward finding a way to succeed in Iraq."

At stake is the ability to sustain a war that so far has claimed the lives of nearly 1,750 U.S. troops and that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has predicted could last years.

The Bush team is acutely aware that public support remains critical for the long-term viability of such a venture, and in the face of sagging polls in recent weeks it has determined to refocus energy on shoring up popular opinion.

In shaping their message, White House officials have drawn on the work of Duke University political scientists Peter D. Feaver and Christopher F. Gelpi, who have examined public opinion on Iraq and previous conflicts.

Feaver, who served on the staff of the National Security Council in the early years of the Clinton administration, joined the Bush NSC staff about a month ago as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform.

Feaver and Gelpi categorized people on the basis of two questions: "Was the decision to go to war in Iraq right or wrong?" and "Can the United States ultimately win?"

In their analysis, the key issue now is how people feel about the prospect of winning.

They concluded that many of the questions asked in public opinion polls -- such as whether going to war was worth it and whether casualties are at an unacceptable level -- are far less relevant now in gauging public tolerance or patience for the road ahead than the question of whether people believe the war is winnable.

"The most important single factor in determining public support for a war is the perception that the mission will succeed," Gelpi said in an interview yesterday.

Key Bush advisers think the general public has considerable patience for keeping U.S. forces in Iraq, but they are mindful that opinion leaders, including members of Congress, high-profile analysts, editorial writers and columnists, are more pessimistic on that question.

And they acknowledge that images of mayhem that people see from Iraq create doubt about the prospects for success.

In studying past wars, they have drawn lessons different from the conventional wisdom.

Bush advisers challenge the widespread view that public opinion turned sour on the Vietnam War because of mounting casualties that were beamed into living rooms every night.

Instead, Bush advisers have concluded that public opinion shifted after opinion leaders signaled that they no longer believed the United States could win in Vietnam.

Most devastating to public opinion, the advisers believe, are public signs of doubt or pessimism by a president, whether it was Ronald Reagan after 241 Marines, soldiers and sailors were killed in a barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, forcing a U.S. retreat, or Bill Clinton in 1993 when 18 Americans were killed in a bloody battle in Somalia, which eventually led to the U.S. withdrawal there.

The more resolute a commander in chief, the Bush aides said, the more likely the public will see a difficult conflict through to the end.

"We want people to understand the difficult work that's ahead," said a senior administration official who insisted on anonymity to speak more freely.

"We want them to understand there's a political process to which the Iraqis are committed and there's a military process, a security process, to which we, our coalition partners and the Iraqis are committed."

"And that there is progress being made but progress in a time of war is tough."

Bush drew criticism for repeated references to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in explaining the stakes in Iraq, but White House officials see that as a crucial part of setting the context for the battle ahead.

"One challenge we face is that there's a clear pre-9/11 mind-set among many people," another senior official said.

"Thankfully, the president isn't one of them."

"He knows we are at war -- and he's acting like we are at war."

"That's what commanders in chief are supposed to do."

But Gelpi, whose studies with Feaver have helped influence the White House thinking, said he thinks the president did not truly achieve what he needed to with the Tuesday speech.

As Gelpi described it, the American people remained supportive of the Iraq effort despite extensive violence when they saw incremental goals being met -- first the handover of partial sovereignty last summer, and then the democratic elections in January.

Since then, he said, public support has fallen because there are no more intermediary benchmarks.

Bush could have laid some out in his speech short of a timetable for withdrawal, Gelpi said, such as setting targets for how many Iraqi security forces would be trained by certain dates.

That, he said, would give the American public a sense of moving forward as these benchmarks are attained.

"What's important for him now to keep the public with him is to look forward and say we're going to make progress and this is what progress looks like," Gelpi said.

"He may have stemmed the flow for a little bit, but I don't think he's given the public a framework for showing how we're making progress."

http://www.registerguard.com/news/2005/06/...haney.0626.html

June 26, 2005

"Guest Viewpoint: The party's over for betrayed Republican"

By James Chaney

As of today, after 25 years, I am no longer a Republican.

I take this step with deep regret, and with a deep sense of betrayal.

I still believe in the vast power of markets to inspire ideas, motivate solutions and eliminate waste.

I still believe in international vigilance and a strong defense, because this world will always be home to people who will avidly seek to take or destroy what we have built as a nation.

I still believe in the protection of individuals and businesses from the influence and expense of an over-involved government.

I still believe in the hand-in-hand concepts of separation of church and state and absolute freedom to worship, in the rights of the states to govern themselves without undo federal interference, and in the host of other things that defined me as a Republican.

My problem is this: I believe in principles and ideals which my party has systematically discarded in the last 10 years.

My Republican Party was the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater, and George H.W. Bush.

It was a party of honesty and accountability.

It was a party of tolerance, and practicality and honor.

It was a party that faced facts and dealt with reality, and that crafted common-sense solutions to problems based on the facts as they were, not as we wished them to be, or even worse, as we made them up.

It was a party that told the truth, even when the truth came hard.

And now, it is none of those things.

Fifty years from now, the Republican Party of this era will be judged by how we provided for the nation's future on three core issues: how we led the world on the environment, how we minded the business of running our country in such a way that we didn't go bankrupt, and whether we gracefully accepted our place on the world's stage as its only superpower.

Sadly, we have built the foundation for dismal failure on all three counts.

And we've done it in such a way that we shouldn't be surprised if neither the American people nor the world ever trusts us again.

My party has repeatedly ignored, discarded and even invented science to suit its needs, most spectacularly as to global warming.

We have an opportunity and the responsibility to lead the world on this issue, but instead we've chosen greed, shortsightedness and deliberate ignorance.

We have mortgaged the country's fiscal future in a way that no Democratic Congress or administration ever did, and to justify the tax cuts that brought us here, we've simply changed the rules.

I matured as a Republican believing that uncontrolled deficit spending is harmful and irresponsible; I still do.

But the party has yet to explain to me why it's a good thing now, other than to say "... because we say so."

Our greatest failure, though, has been in our role as superpower.

This world needs justice, democracy and compassion, and as the keystone of those things, it needs one thing above all else: truth.

Republican decisions made in 2002 and 2003 have killed almost 2,000 of the most capable patriots our country has to offer - volunteers, every one.

Support for those decisions was gathered through what appeared at the time to be spin and marketing, but which now turns out to have been deliberate planning and falsehood.

The Blair government's internal documentation only confirms what has been suspected for years: Americans are dying every day for Republican lies first crafted in 2002, expanded and embellished upon in 2003, and which continue to this day.

This calculated deception is now burned into the legacy of the party, every bit as much as Reagan's triumph in the Cold War, or Nixon's disgrace over Watergate.

I could go on and on - about how we have compromised our international integrity by sanctioning torture, about how we are systematically dismantling the civil liberties that it took us two centuries to define and preserve, and about how we have substituted bullying, brinksmanship and "staying on message" for real political discourse - but those three issues are enough.

We're poisoning our planet through gluttony and ignorance.

We're teetering on the brink of self-inflicted insolvency.

We're selfishly and needlessly sacrificing the best of a generation.

And we're lying about it.

While it has compiled this record of failure and deception, the party which I'm leaving today has spent its time, energy and political capital trying to save Terri Schiavo, battling the threat of single-sex unions, fighting medical marijuana and physician-assisted suicide, manufacturing political crises over presidential nominees, and selling privatized Social Security to an America that isn't buying.

We fiddle while Rome burns.

Enough is enough.

I quit.

James Chaney is a Eugene attorney who has been in private practice for more than 20 years, and who has been a registered Republican since 1980.

Well, I would say that James Chaney is correct on every point he makes. I would guess that most voters, regardless of their party affiliation, who really pay attention to what's going on in this
nation, would agree with him. The 2006 and 2008 election results will tell how many voters are really aware of how this administration has/is harming this nation.

One down, 59,054,086 to go.

Yikes Jeff, I guess the numbers are scary!

I actually was a Republican, myself, although while I was one, I never was religious about being one, as I never saw anything to be religious about!

I actually thought, when I was young, and registered to vote, that you had to be one, or the other, and so, I registered Republican, because of Ike, who made quite an impression on me, when I was young!

And then, some time later, 1986, to be exact, I "met" another crowd who were calling themselved the Republicans, and what these people had running was a protection racket such as would have made the Mafia drool with envy!

When I became absolutely convinced that these people were in fact "THE Republican Party", that is to say, the "political muscle" recognized as such in my county as the "muscle", then I quit that "party" immediately, and have never looked back, since!

I came to realize how holding back your vote from a party and your affiliation weakens that party, much more effectively than any other thing that we citizens can do, here in our America!

Strangle the REPUBLICANS for votes!

Bleed them down, and get them decertified in your town, then your county, then your state!

Give no votes to any Republican for any office in your own elections!

And use logic to convince just one other person to do the same!

Just one!

That is all it takes!

Well, we got some real severe weather in the area, and so, I might get cut off at any time, and so ......

From what I hear, out west of here, Amsterdam, just west of Schenectady, well, I guess they got tore up some, and about three inches of rain, which had roads and cars covered to a depth of four feet!

And its only July 1!

Violent weather!

And we are absolutely helpless to do a thing about it, except not have bad feelings towards nothing, or no one, and pray!

New York State Thruway closed west of Albany, both lanes, east and west, is what I just heard!

Flooding!

How about that?

This is New York and this stuff never happens here, and so, it is probably just lies invented by enviros who want to attack George W. Bush, George Pataki and Dick Cheney and the REPUBLICANS, politically!

"FBI Searches California Congressman's Home"

By SETH HETTENA, Associated press Writer

33 minutes ago

SAN DIEGO - Federal agents on Friday searched the California home of U.S. Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, along with the yacht in Washington, D.C., where he has been living, the FBI said.

Agents from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service and the Defense Department's criminal investigative service also searched the Washington offices of a defense firm whose founder bought the congressman's previous home, leading to a federal investigation, said Debra Weierman, a Washington FBI spokeswoman.

Cunningham, 63, has said that he showed poor judgment in selling the house, but he acted honestly and predicted that an investigation would prove that.

On Friday, a Cunningham spokesman said he did not know anything about the raids and referred all inquiries to the congressman's attorney, K. Lee Blalack, who did not immediately return a call for comment.

The former Navy "Top Gun" fighter pilot and eight-term Republican congressman sold his home in November 2003 to Mitchell Wade, a campaign contributor and close friend.

Wade paid $1.7 million for the 3,826-square-foot house in wealthy, seaside Del Mar, just north of San Diego.

He put it back on the market soon after and eventually took a $700,000 loss when he resold it in October 2004.

During that span, home prices in San Diego County rose an average of nearly 25 percent.

Meanwhile, Wade's little-known company, Washington, D.C.-based MZM Inc., was increasing its federal contracting business.

In 2004, MZM tripled its revenue and nearly quadrupled its staff, according to the company's Web site.

Cunningham is a member of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee and the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, both of which oversee the kind of classified intelligence work MZM does for the military.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in San Diego is investigating the house sale with help from the FBI.

Earlier this week, Cunningham's office disclosed that a federal grand jury has subpoenaed documents from him, though they declined to elaborate further.

Cunningham has also lived part-time on Wade's boat, docked on the Potomac River.

He has said he agreed to pay dock fees and service and maintenance costs to Wade in lieu of rent to stay there.

Living on Wade's boat without paying would violate congressional ethics rules.

The Defense Department halted orders this month on a five-year contract that provided MZM with $163 million of revenue over its first three years after the department's inspector general found that it did not satisfy rules on competitiveness.

This week, MZM announced that James King, a retired three-star Army general, was taking over as president and chief executive — a role held for years by Wade, who founded the company in 1993.
___

Associated Press Writers Erica Werner and Mark Sherman in Washington contributed to this report.