This is my favorite sentence in that article, jeffmoskin, this one right above here, about "when the Americans might feel compelled to step in more aggressively!"

Now, that's what this DE-MOCKERY is all about, in a nutshell!

Force and aggression!

Yeah, man!

GO, Bush Co., GO!

And shifting gears in here, for a moment, and leaving Iraq to the Iraqis, if only they can hold on to the place, we cruise back over to HERE, where gadzooks, what is this now?

WE'RE BEING RETALIATED AGAINST?

How can that be?

We are the only SUPERPOWER on the face of the earth, and WE dictate to everybody else, don't we?

Hhhhhmmm!

Guess not!

Business - Reuters

"EU, Canada Add Duties on U.S. Exports"

1 hour, 4 minutes ago

By Jeremy Smith

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Union and Canada will slap an extra 15-percent duty on tens of millions of dollars worth of U.S. exports in a dispute over payments to U.S. companies that Washington says were hurt by dumping, EU and Canadian officials said on Thursday.

"Retaliation is not our preferred option, but it is a necessary action."

"International trade rules must be respected," said Canada's Trade Minister Jim Peterson in a statement released in Ottawa.

Brussels and Ottawa said they opted for the duties because of Washington's failure to fix a program known as the Byrd amendment which the World Trade Organization has said is illegal.

The WTO gave permission to the EU, Canada, Japan and several other trading partners in November to apply an initial $150 million in trade sanctions after Washington failed to change the Byrd amendment to comply with WTO rules.

The program, which is named for Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, distributes anti-dumping duties to U.S. companies that initially sought government protection because of low-priced foreign competition.

Under the amendment, the U.S. government has doled out more than $1 billion to U.S. ball bearing, steel, seafood, candle and other companies over the past four years.

U.S. officials in Washington said they were disappointed with the EU and Canada's decision to go ahead with sanctions.

"The United States is working to comply with the WTO decision regarding the Byrd amendment," said Richard Mills, a spokesman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican whose panel has jurisdiction on trade issues, said he hoped Congress could reach "a consensus soon on the Byrd amendment that will enable us to avoid continued trade sanctions."

The EU said its retaliation totaled nearly $28 million on U.S. exports including textiles, stationery, sweet corn, and machinery products beginning May 1.

Canada said its new duties would hurt U.S. exports of live swine, cigarettes, oysters and certain specialty fish by about C$14 million ($11.6 million) annually, also beginning May 1.

The level of retaliation could rise depending on the amount payments made under the Byrd program.

U.S. pork producers said the 15-percent duty on live swine exports to Canada likely would put a big dent in sales.

The Canadian sanctions are the first on the United States since a fight over beer trade in the early 1990s.

BYRD AMENDMENT POPULAR IN CONGRESS

The Bush administration has proposed repealing the Byrd amendment in each of the last three years.

But the program remains popular with many lawmakers and there has been little other movement toward taking it off the books.

Byrd and other supporters want the Bush administration to negotiate a deal in world trade talks that would allow the United States to keep the program.

Japan has been authorized to impose about $80 million in sanctions on the United States, but has not decided yet whether to exercise that option.

"We haven't reached a final decision, but our position that we're strongly against the U.S. measures hasn't changed," said a Japanese embassy official in Washington.

And while we are being RETALIATED AGAINST by what are nothing more than pip-squeak nations, I think I heard Dick Cheney call them, what of the Bush Co.'s?

What's the haps with them?

How are they taking this economic aggression against US, the mighty United States of America?

Let's look and see what we can see!

Hhhhmmmm?

Is the Bush Co. "circling the wagons" or something here?

Let's take a closer look:

Politics - washingtonpost.com

"Bush Is Keeping Cabinet Secretaries Close to Home"

Thu Mar 31, 9:47 AM ET

By Michael A. Fletcher, Washington Post Staff Writer

President Bush is requiring Cabinet members to spend several hours a week at the White House compound, a move top aides say eases coordination with government agencies but one seen by some analysts as fresh evidence of the White House's tightening grip over administration policy.

Under a directive instituted by Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. at the start of Bush's second term, Cabinet secretaries spend as many as four hours a week working out of an office suite set up for them at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, adjacent to the White House.

There, they meet with presidential policy and communications aides in an effort to better coordinate the administration's initiatives and messages.

"It allows us to work on a much more regular basis with the Cabinet in helping to manage issues," said Claude A. Allen, Bush's domestic policy adviser.

"It also helps us lay the groundwork that is going to be necessary to implement the very aggressive agenda that the president has laid out for his second term."

The new practice applies to every Cabinet agency, although the heads of the Defense, State, Homeland Security and Justice departments are required to be at the White House so regularly for meetings that they rarely use the suite, said Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman.

Robert S. Nichols, spokesman for the Treasury Department, said that Secretary John W. Snow was already spending a lot of time at the White House "in large part due to his key role on the president's top domestic priorities, primarily Social Security."

One White House official said the policy has caused some consternation among some of the Cabinet secretaries, but the officers publicly defended the new practice.

"Having an office and time to work at the White House is a great way to build an effective and cohesive team," Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao said.

Paul C. Light, a professor of public service at New York University and a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, sees its purpose differently.

"This administration has been very conscious in the second term of the need to control what happens in Cabinet agencies and to make sure Cabinet officers don't get too far out there," he said.

"I find it absolutely shocking that they would have regular office hours at the White House."

"It confirms how little the domestic Cabinet secretaries have to do with making policy."

Some scholars said the new office-hours requirement continues a trend in which Cabinet secretaries have become less architects of policy than purveyors of initiatives hatched by the political and policy officials in the White House.

During the Eisenhower administration, for example, officials hashed out national policy during weekly Cabinet meetings.

Now, the Cabinet meets irregularly -- maybe once every 45 days, Healy said -- and those sessions are mostly ceremonial.

"Power has gravitated to the White House over the past 50 years, and it keeps going," said Bradley H. Patterson Jr., who served in three administrations and has written two books on the subject.

"I would say development of all major issues important to the president are centered in the White House."

"They have been sucked away from the Cabinet officers and brought to the White House."

"It was that way under Clinton, and more so under Bush."

The new requirement coincides with a series of top personnel moves seen as increasing White House control over the government and minimizing dissent, but also, critics say, means the president does not have the benefit of the widest range of opinion.

A succession of trusted Bush aides have been given Cabinet positions for the second term, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Education Secretary Margaret Spellings.

Inside the White House, senior adviser Karl Rove has been given an expanded role coordinating domestic, economic and foreign policy.

White House aides with strong ties to Bush also have been placed in strategic sub-Cabinet jobs.

Bush also has nominated former White House counselor Karen P. Hughes and Dina Powell, who headed presidential personnel during his first term, to top jobs at the State Department, where they will work on repairing the nation's image in the Muslim world.

In at least one case, a key appointment was made despite the contrary wishes of an agency head.

New Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez, former head of the Kellogg Co., was set to bring in a longtime vice president, George A. Franklin, to be a senior adviser.

But the White House scuttled that plan after officials learned that Franklin had made a $500 contribution to the presidential campaign of Democrat John F. Kerry, an administration source said.

Later, White House deputy press secretary Claire Buchan was named Gutierrez's chief of staff.

Bush's moves to tighten control over an administration already regarded as disciplined comes as he is pursuing fundamental shifts in domestic policy that would rival the changes made in U.S. foreign policy during his first term.

He is advocating a plan to restructure Social Security, rewrite the nation's tax laws and change immigration laws.

He also has proposed an energy plan that includes broader use of nuclear power and oil drilling in environmentally sensitive areas.

Bush expects his entire Cabinet to offer a coordinated message to help achieve his goals, and the regular time at the White House with his policy and communications staff is, in part, aimed at keeping everyone in the administration in sync, aides said.

Martha Joynt Kumar, a Towson University professor who studies White House communication, called the office-hour requirement unusual.

"Obviously, this is a way for the White House to make sure what's going on in the agencies," she said.

Still, she said, it could also work to the advantage of Cabinet secretaries -- particularly those whose issues rarely rise to Bush's attention -- by allowing them to raise topics with the White House and to build stronger relationships with policymakers there.

"To me it has been absolutely great," said Housing and Urban Development Secretary Alphonso Jackson.

"Before it was very difficult to get interaction or get someone from the White House to come to your office, because they are very busy, too."

"It has absolutely worked well. . . . During the past five weeks, I have had more interaction with the White House staff than I had in the previous three years."

One senior White House official said he was initially concerned about how agency heads, many of whom are former governors or top business leaders, would take to being required to be at the White House.

But the initiative has proved popular, he said.

Spellings, who has worked with Bush since his days as governor of Texas, said having built-in time at the White House "is a very efficient way to work."

She said it gives her an opportunity to consult with presidential personnel officials, to meet with top officials, including Bush, or to be briefed on administrative initiatives, such as the Social Security plan, a subject that often arises at her public appearances.

In addition, it allows her to tap into the aura of the White House by holding meetings there with key constituents.

Asked whether it was a means for the White House to control her department, Spellings, who spent Bush's first term as the president's domestic policy adviser, said:

"It is not that at all."

"I just think it keeps us connected to each other."

"It also helps guard against the us-against-them mentality that can develop between agencies and the White House."

Donna E. Shalala, who served two terms as secretary of Health and Human Services under President Bill Clinton, said having a regular presence at the White House is crucial to developing, coordinating and rolling out new policies.

"Maybe Andy [Card] is institutionalizing what is a natural process," she said.

"He's an awfully good administrator."

An aide to one Cabinet officer suggested it was a sign of status to be exempt from the requirement.

"The Cabinet officers who are involved in the hot issues are over there anyway all the time."

"The big Cabinet officers are coordinating all the time on legislative strategy, on message, on travel, on testimony issues."

"Do you think Condi Rice has to go over and coordinate every week?"

"No, it's a constant process."

"So this may pertain to Cabinet officers who aren't there all the time."

Staff writers Jeffrey H. Birnbaum and Dana Milbank contributed to this report.

"Bush also has nominated former White House counselor Karen P. Hughes and Dina Powell, who headed presidential personnel during his first term, to top jobs at the State Department, where they will work on repairing the nation's image in the Muslim world."

Now there is a real telling statement, isn't it?

Not one, BUT TWO people being appointed by the Bush Co. TO REPAIR all the damage that he has done to OUR America's image with the Muslim world!

And why does anyone think that anyone associated with George W. Bush can now undo all the damage to OUR America's image that George W. Bush personally has done?

Isn't that a bit incongruous?

Why on earth is anyone else in the world now going to believe anything a Bush Co. has to say, about anything, after all the lies, the half-truths, the deceptions, BY THE BUSH CO.'s which caused all the damage to OUR America's image in the first place?

Wouldn't the best way now for George W. Bush to repair the damage that he personally has done to America's image, ALL ACROSS THE WORLD, be for him to publicly admit that he has been wrong, and to then make a public apology to the whole candid world, including the Muslims?

After he resigns, of course, for a real good start to that process!

King Bush apologize?

You must be kidding.

Only people that do something wrong need to apologize.

KINGS do not make mistakes!! Got that??

Now that the commission on the CIA has issued their report on how " dead wrong "
the CIA was on the non existent WMD's in Iraq, it becomes a lot clearer why Bush hung that medal around ( ex ) CIA Director George Tenet's neck.

Could it be that George Tenet was being bought off? A medal for not saying anything embarrassing about the King?

Not saying anything about ANY pressure to even hint there might not have been any WMD's in Oilville?

Just a thought by one extremely cynical citizen.

A.B.

Ah, cynical perhaps, Mr. A.B., BUT STILL A CITIZEN, and that is really what counts!

WE are the Republic, NOT GEORGE W. BUSH!

George W. Bush is OUR public servant, but it seems that he has forgotton that, if indeed he ever knew it in the first place, which is highly doubtful given the lack of integrity of this crowd that surrounds George W. Bush and keeps him propped up in power, despite his unpopularity with the American people, WHICH IS US.

How does the saying go?

Keep on keeping on?

One foot in front of the other?

Hence this forum, where Americans can unite in common cause against the tyranny and despotism and just plain incompetence and outright lying of the Bush Co.'s, and hence, this thread, to keep track of how the battle goes!

And here, I have to wonder how the Bush Co.'s found out this guy made a $500 campaign contribution to John Kerry's presidential campaign, which shows the guy to have some intelligence and integrity, anyway!

Did they torture him, I wonder?

Or beat it out of him, perhaps?

Some of Condo's "thugs", maybe?

Or would it have been Donald's "HARD BOYS"?

"This is not part of their historical culture!"

I have to say that after I left here last night, that one sentence kept spinning around in my head, for the irony that it contains for all of us in America and the world, today, an irony that shows the hypocrisy of this present administration in the full light of day!

WHY ISN'T IT PART OF THEIR HISTORICAL CULTURE, CLASS?

Little Johnny?

Little Suzy?

Yes, little Suzy, you were going to say something here?

Hhhhmmm!

Yes, I would say you have been doing your homework, little Suzy!

It is not a part of their historical culture because people in America like George H. W. Bush, the father of this present Bush, and a lot of big corporations wanted to make a lot of money, and so, they did what they always usually do, they propped up the evil dictator Saddam Hussein, AND MADE HIM STRONG, and thus, THEY SET IN MOTION, or more properly kept in motion, THE HISTORICAL PROCESSES OF CONTINUING TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION IN IRAQ which do make it very hard for the Iraqis today!

Well done, little Suzy!

And speaking about something that is a part of their HISTORICAL CULTURE, thanks to George H.(e) W.(eeps) Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld, and George Schultz, and Ronald Raygun, and all others involved in PROPPING UP Saddam Hussein for all those long years, including the American corporations who make their GEETUS off of human misery and suffering, we have, from Iraq, ah, let's see, yes, more violence:

Middle East - AP

"Shiite Pilgrims Fear Attacks in Iraq"

37 minutes ago

By ANTONIO CASTANEDA, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq - An explosion Friday damaged a ninth-century minaret in Samarra that was once a sign of the central city's glory, as thousands of Shiite pilgrims slept on the streets of the holy city of Karbala for fear of traveling at night after a string of attacks on the faithful.

In other violence, a bomb near a Sunni mosque in Kirkuk killed one civilian heading to Friday prayers, said police official Sarhat Qadir.

Three others were also injured.

Gunmen in the eastern city of Balad Ruz, meanwhile, killed police chief Col. Hatim Rashid and another officer at a police station, police Col. Mudhafar al-Jubouri said.

A third officer was injured in the attack, 30 miles northeast of Baghdad.

In Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, witnesses said two men climbed the 170-foot-tall spiral minaret, then returned to the ground before the explosion, which tore a large hole in the structure, police Lt. Qasim Mohammed said.

The minaret is all that remains of a mosque dating back from the Abbasid Islamic dynasty and is featured on Iraq's 250-dinar bill.

It was unclear why the minaret, one of Iraq's most famous landmarks, was targeted.

In the holy city of Karbala, bus stations were packed with faithful heading home after a Shiite religious holiday marking the end of a 40-day mourning period for Imam Hussein, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and one of Shiites' most important saints.

Fighters from the Sunni Muslim-led insurgency staged several deadly attacks on Shiite pilgrims in the days leading up to the religious festival.

Security measures remained Friday, with policemen keeping watch from building rooftops and patrolling the streets.

On Thursday, a suicide car bomber blew himself up near an Islamic shrine in Tuz Khormato, 55 miles south of Kirkuk, killing five Iraqis and wounding 16, hospital officials said.

Also Friday, witnesses said a car bomb exploded outside a U.S. base in Ramadi, near a convoy at the base's gate.

The U.S. military and Iraqi police did not immediately have information on the blast.

Ukraine and Italy announced timelines to pull troops from Iraq later this year, further dwindling the number of U.S.-led coalition forces.

Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said his country's troops will leave Iraq by year's end.

Ukraine had already said it would begin pulling out its 1,650 soldiers, the fifth-largest contingent in the coalition, but had not set a timetable.

Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi also said he plans to trim his contingent of troops at the end of September by about 300 soldiers from his current force of 3,300.

In Romania, which has 800 soldiers in Iraq, Prime Minister Calin Popescu Tariceanu refused to say whether he would consider withdrawing its troops after kidnappers released a video showing three Romanian journalists who were abducted in Baghdad.

The video, aired by Al-Jazeera satellite television, showed the three Romanian journalists and a fourth unidentified person — possibly an American — with guns pointed at them.

Tariceanu said no demands had been made yet.

The troop reduction announcements came as U.S. forces have intensified programs to train more troops in the Iraqi Army and police force, hoping to stabilize the country with native forces.

And as U.S. forces under the DIRECT COMMAND of George W. Bush intensify their efforts to "stabilize" the country, BUSH CO. style, by using what the Bush Co.'s euphemistically call "native forces", let's take a look at what "stabilizing" Iraq BUSH CO. style really looks like, in person:

"Deaths spur calls to overhaul Iraqi police"

By Anne Barnard, Boston Globe Staff | March 31, 2005

BAGHDAD -- The Iraqi government's unprecedented admission that its police tortured and killed three Shi'ite Muslim militiamen while they were in custody has set off angry complaints from newly elected Shi'ite legislators who are engaged in a political battle for control of the police.

Shi'ite leaders have beamed gruesome images of the dead men to Iraqi television sets, displaying their bruised, scarred bodies as an argument for radically reshaping the police force, which is crucial to the fight against the country's bloody insurgency.

In a series of steps rarely seen in Iraq, US-backed Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's interim government has acknowledged the men ''died under torture by police," arrested six police officers in the case, launched a high-level investigation, and paid the men's families about $2,000 each plus a $500 monthly stipend.

Yet the debate over the deaths last month is only beginning.

Government officials insist the killings are an isolated case.

But the leaders of the powerful Shi'ite Islamist bloc that won more than half the seats in the new National Assembly say the case reveals mistakes in the way Allawi and his US advisers recruited and trained Iraq's police.

Those Shi'ite leaders say the force is a haven for Ba'athists who mistreated Iraqis, especially Shi'ites, under Saddam Hussein.

''Iraqis are being tortured by Iraqis, by the security groups which are responsible for their safety," said Hadi al-Ameri, head of the Badr Organization, an Iranian-trained militia founded in the 1980s as the armed wing of the Islamist party that is now the largest in the Shi'ite bloc.

''Under Saddam, we were used to prisoners being tortured until they died," he said.

''But the strange thing is that after Saddam, the same thing happens."

As the largest faction in the assembly, the Shi'ite bloc has the greatest say in naming the new Cabinet that will replace Allawi's, and some of its leaders want to make Ameri the interior minister, who will set police policy.

The killings of the three men -- all Badr members -- added an explosive element to the debate.

Their families say they were deliberately targeted by police opposed to the rise of Shi'ite power.

The way the case is perceived could help determine whether the new government overhauls the Iraqi security forces created over the past two years or builds on the current foundation, as US officials and Allawi have urged.

It could also affect whether Iraq's Shi'ite majority is willing to risk handing a larger security role to members of Islamist militias like the Badr, which informally patrols many Baghdad neighborhoods and southern cities.

The 85,000-member police force is a mix of lightly-trained recruits and veterans of Hussein's security services who have more experience but carry the taint of the regime's abuses.

Allawi insists the veterans have been carefully screened, but the Shi'ite bloc wants to purge many more.


Shi'ite leaders have publicized the killings to call for change.

Imams have extolled the three men as martyrs.

An eight-minute video of their bloodied corpses has run at least 10 times on the Al Furat television channel, which belongs to the parent group of the Badr, dubbing them martyrs to Hussein's thugs.

But Sabah Kadhim, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said the three were killed by an officer who overreacted after he mistakenly arrested them during a firefight with Sunni Muslim insurgents, when, Kadhim said, ''everybody's blood was boiling."

''This case is not a case I would worry about," he said.

''You have to understand the Iraqi temperament."

"There is violence, an element of violence in every Iraqi."

Shi'ite parties are overemphasizing the case, he said, because ''they want to take this ministry."

Two recent reports, one issued in January by Human Rights Watch and the other by the US State Department last month, cite scores of reports of torture and arbitrary detention by Iraqi police and soldiers.

Last year, the US report says, police executed 12 alleged kidnappers in Baghdad and took part in revenge killings of 10 Ba'athists in Basra.

But the Badr case stands out because Iraqi officials acknowledge that the men were tortured, and medical records detail the brutal beatings they received.

The tale reverberates with Iraqi citizens, who desperately want improved security from their first elected government, but also demand new accountability from police.

The case opens a rare window on the workings of the Iraqi government, whose conflicting impulses teeter between increasing transparency and clinging to Hussein-era impunity.

Majbal Adnan Latif al-Alawi, 39, his brother Ali Adnan Latif al-Alawi, 35, and their friend, Aidi Mahaissen Lefteh, 30, returned from exile in Iran after the US invasion two years ago.

Like many men in their families, they carried Badr identification cards, a badge that inspires respect in some Iraqis and fear in others.

Sunnis, especially, recall that the Badr Brigades took Iran's side in its war with Iraq.

Now the group calls itself the Badr Organization and says it is now a civilian group acting only within Iraqi law.

The three victims, their families say, had office jobs with Badr and hoped it would find them government jobs.

On Feb. 12, they were arrested in Zafaraniya, in eastern Baghdad.

Abd Ali al-Alawi, the brothers' uncle, said they drove there to rent an apartment and mistakenly ran a police checkpoint, where they were detained after showing their Badr cards.

Kadhim, the Interior Ministry spokesman, told a different story, saying the men stumbled into a firefight in which Sunni insurgents had killed several police.

The police thought the three opened fire on them, Kadhim said, but he now thinks the Badr members joined the fight on the side of police.

The uncle, Alawi, said he went two consecutive days to the police station where the men were being held, but was not allowed to see them or the officer in charge, Brigadier Amer Sajid al-Dami.

On the third day, he said, a police major agreed to check on the case.

''When he came back out, he was trembling," recalled Alawi, whose big toe bears a scar he said was inflicted when Hussein's torturers pulled out the nail a decade ago.

''He told us, 'Please don't make me interfere with this case'."

"'I am afraid for my family'."

By then, the three men were already dead.

First Lieutenant Haider Abdul-Wahab, who works in another police station, said in an interview that he found the men's blindfolded corpses, one in handcuffs, dumped by a roadside on Feb. 13, the day after their arrest.

They were taken to Baghdad's central morgue.

Autopsy reports viewed by the Globe state that all three had bruises on their faces, arms, backs, and legs, apparently from being struck with a stick or long object.

Each died from blunt-force injuries and bleeding, the reports say.

Majbal's left big toenail had been pulled out.

The Interior Ministry immediately launched an investigation, Kadhim said.

But when Alawi learned his nephews and their friend were dead -- leaving 15 children fatherless -- he feared there would be no justice without political muscle.

He went to the main office of the Shi'ite bloc.

Angry and agitated, he threatened to take revenge -- tribal codes permit tit-for-tat killings -- if he did not get help.

The party made the case a cause celebre, distributing posters that displayed the bodies.

Al Furat broadcast a video taken at the morgue, on which a narrator points out blackened, scarred areas on the bodies that he says are the result of electric shocks.

Within a week, Prime Minister Allawi issued a statement that denounced the killings as ''a barbaric and criminal act by elements who exceeded the limits of their responsibility."

He vowed to follow the case personally and called for ''maximum punishment."

The families now receive a stipend well above the pay of most government officials, but they say they only want justice.

If the killers are not severely punished, ''we'll take revenge by tribal law," said Aidi's brother Farhan Mahaissen Lefteh, 37.

''That means we live in the jungle."

Anne Barnard can be reached at abarnard@globe.com.

end quotes

Will America be next?

Will the Bush Co.'s import this kind of violence against us, those few remaining in this country who are for decency and human rights?

Stay tuned!

And as always, if there is no action in here for a couple of days running, start scanning the trees around my area for an older-looking guy with greyish hair and a mustache nailed to one, or who knows, maybe they'll just dump me in a ditch like they did with those three Iraqis, in which case, I'll be easier to find, perhaps!

And of course, the same thing is happening!

And who thought that it would change?

Anyone?

IS THERE ACTUALLY ANYONE OUT THERE WHO THOUGHT IT WOULD BE DIFFERENT?

And speaking of other things that just never seem to change, but, instead, always remain the same, and there really is no surprise at that, given that these are "POLITICAL" functions, where instead of getting competent people, we always seem to end up with dead wood and detritus, and lap dogs, and toadies and sycophants, and boot-lickers, and lick-spittles and other assorted ilk and just plain, downright hacks and incompetents from within the ranks of the POLITICAL PARTIES, we have as follows:

Top Stories - Los Angeles Times

"Spy Agencies Called 'Dead Wrong' in Prewar Analyses on Iraqi Arms

24 minutes ago

Associated Press

Mr. President:

With this letter, we transmit the report of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Our unanimous report is based on a lengthy investigation, during which we interviewed hundreds of experts from inside and outside the intelligence community and reviewed thousands of documents.

Our report offers 74 recommendations for improving the U.S. intelligence community (all but a handful of which we believe can be implemented without statutory change).

But among these recommendations a few points merit special emphasis.

We conclude that the intelligence community was dead wrong in almost all of its prewar judgments about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

This was a major intelligence failure.

Its principal causes were the intelligence community's inability to collect good information about Iraq's WMD programs, serious errors in analyzing what information it could gather and a failure to make clear just how much of its analysis was based on assumptions, rather than good evidence.

On a matter of this importance, we simply cannot afford failures of this magnitude.

After a thorough review, the commission found no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

What the intelligence professionals told you about Saddam Hussein's programs was what they believed.

They were simply wrong.

As you asked, we looked as well beyond Iraq in our review of the intelligence community's capabilities.

We conducted case studies of our intelligence agencies' recent performance assessing the risk of WMD in Libya and Afghanistan, and our current capabilities with respect to several of the world's most dangerous state and non-state proliferation threats.

Out of this more comprehensive review, we report both bad news and good news.

The bad news is that we still know disturbingly little about the weapons programs and even less about the intentions of many of our most dangerous adversaries.

The good news is that we have had some solid intelligence successes — thanks largely to innovative and multi-agency collection techniques.

Our review has convinced us that the best hope for preventing future failures is dramatic change.

We need an intelligence community that is truly integrated, far more imaginative and willing to run risks, open to a new generation of Americans and receptive to new technologies.

We have summarized our principal recommendations for the entire intelligence community in the overview of the report.

Here, we focus on recommendations that we believe only you can effect if you choose to implement them:

• Give the DNI powers — and backing — to match his responsibilities.

In your public statement accompanying the announcement of Ambassador [John] Negroponte's nomination as director of national intelligence, you have already moved in this direction.

The new intelligence law makes the DNI responsible for integrating the 15 independent members of the intelligence community.

But it gives him powers that are only relatively broader than before.

The DNI cannot make this work unless he takes his legal authorities over budget, programs, personnel and priorities to the limit.

It won't be easy to provide this leadership to the intelligence components of the Defense Department, or to the CIA.

They are some of the government's most headstrong agencies.

Sooner or later, they will try to run around — or over — the DNI.

Then, only your determined backing will convince them that we cannot return to the old ways.

• Bring the FBI all the way into the intelligence community.

The FBI is one of the proudest and most independent agencies in the United States Government.

It is on its way to becoming an effective intelligence agency, but it will never arrive if it insists on using only its own map.

We recommend that you order an organizational reform of the bureau that pulls all of its intelligence capabilities into one place and subjects them to the coordinating authority of the DNI — the same authority that the DNI exercises over Defense Department intelligence agencies.

Under this recommendation, the counterterrorism and counterintelligence resources of the bureau would become a single National Security Service inside the FBI.

It would of course still be subject to the attorney general's oversight and to current legal rules.

The intelligence reform act almost accomplishes this task, but at crucial points it retreats into ambiguity.

Without leadership from the DNI, the FBI is likely to continue escaping effective integration into the intelligence community.

• Demand more of the intelligence community.

The intelligence community needs to be pushed.

It will not do its best unless it is pressed by policy-makers — sometimes to the point of discomfort.

Analysts must be pressed to explain how much they don't know; the collection agencies must be pressed to explain why they don't have better information on key topics.

While policy-makers must be prepared to credit intelligence that doesn't fit their preferences, no important intelligence assessment should be accepted without sharp questioning that forces the community to explain exactly how it came to that assessment and what alternatives might also be true.

This is not "politicization"; it is a necessary part of the intelligence process.

And in the end, it is the key to getting the best from an intelligence community that, at its best, knows how to do astonishing things.

• Rethink the president's daily brief.

The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed.

Through attention-grabbing headlines and repetition of questionable data, these briefings overstated the case that Iraq was rebuilding its WMD programs.

There are many other aspects of the daily brief that deserve to be reconsidered as well, but we are reluctant to make categorical recommendations on a process that in the end must meet your needs, not our theories.

On one point, however, we want to be specific:

While the DNI must be ultimately responsible for the content of your daily briefing, we do not believe that the DNI ought to prepare, deliver, or even attend every briefing.

For if the DNI is consumed by current intelligence, the long-term needs of the intelligence community will suffer.

There is no more important intelligence mission than understanding the worst weapons that our enemies possess, and how they intend to use them against us.

These are their deepest secrets, and unlocking them must be our highest priority.

So far, despite some successes, our intelligence community has not been agile and innovative enough to provide the information that the nation needs.

Other commissions and observers have said the same.

We should not wait for another commission or another administration to force widespread change in the intelligence community.

— Associated Press

Hmph!

Daily intelligence briefings?

NO!

How about daily "DOG AND PONY" show for the likes of PROPAGANDAWEEK, er, NEWSWEEK, and the Washington Post, where the lies of the day to justify invading Iraq to steal its oil were cooked up and hatched out by the likes of "CON JOB" Connie Rice, who is chock full of beans, and Colin "I'll tell'em whatever you want, BOSS" Powell, and Frannie Frago Townsend, who just happened to "LEAK" the contents of her HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL "PUTTER" to PROPAGANDAWEEK, er, NEWSWEEK, just before the November elections, WITH NO ADVERSE FALLOUT, or RAMIFICATIONS to her, whatsoever, for leaking alleged NATIONAL SECURITY SECRETS to the BUSH CO. PROPAGANDA MACHINE, er, press, so that John Kerry could be further discredited, and the BUSH CO.'s could emerge from the elections, victorious one more time, IN THEIR DECEIT!

HOW ABOUT SOME TRUTH HERE, FOR A CHANGE?

We see through the lies, boys and girls down there in Washington, D$C$, and quite frankly, we ARE SICK OF THEM!

SICK TO DEATH, AND TIRED, TO BOOT!

We have "transparency, FINALLY, in this country, thanks to the power of the internet, AND NOT THE PRESS, and thanks to that "transparency", we have been following this IRAQ FIASCO right from its inception BORN IN LIES from the bowels of the WHITE HOUSE itself, and its minions therein, AND WE DON'T WANT ANY MORE, especially from this gutless CONGRESS!

GET THE PARTISAN POLITICS OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!

Get all the incompetents OUT!

Which starts with the REPUBLICAN PARTY!

GET THEIR DIRTY HANDS OFF OUR GOVERNMENT!

OR accept the alternative, that OUR REPUBLIC is nothing more than a great, big joke!

And OUR democracy is as well!

The old ways?

What old ways?

The "old ways" are the same "ways" that we still have today, BECAUSE NOTHING DOWN THERE IN WASHINGTON, D$C$ has changed ONE WHIT!

Nothing!

George W. Bush and the FABULOUS BUSH CO.'s, who can "spin" more lies per hour than the universe has atoms in it, are still in power, and there is now no disincentive for them to stop lying, SINCE the lies bought them another FOUR YEARS in power here in OUR America, and that is a fact!

And another "fact" is that Donald Rumsfeld is still in charge of the Defense Department, and the ANTINOMIAN PRIME, the Bush Co. himself, is still in charge of the CIA, through a political minion, of course, and so ......

WHAT ON EARTH ARE THESE GUTLESS WONDERS DOWN THERE IN WASHINGTON, D$C$, TALKING ABOUT, this alleged "return to the old ways"?

The "OLD WAYS" is all we have had now since 2000, and why should we expect change now?

After all, the REPUBLICANS, who have brought us "THESE OLD WAYS", are now gearing up to grab yet more power, even absolute power, here in OUR America, SO WHY WOULD THEY DISMANTLE THEIR MACHINE NOW?

It makes no sense!

And who is going to make them do so?

The REPUBLICANS in Congress?

Yeah, right!

Give me a break, please!

I just read something about where George W. Bush got a new dog, and he is said to have named that dog "John McCain", because he can only get the dog to "roll over" some of the time, but he expects, with further training, that the dog, perhaps like its alleged "namesake", will soon "roll over" on command, and that about sums up the matter of "change" coming out of WASHINGTON, D$C$, for me!

Yeah, right!

March 31, 2005

Max Boot: "The Iraq War's Outsourcing Snafu - The coalition of the billing has real limits."

Ever since Ronald Reagan proclaimed in his 1981 inaugural address that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," leaders at all levels of government, Democrats and Republicans alike, have been outsourcing as much work as possible to the private sector.

This is generally a good idea, but when it comes to the military, this trend may have gone too far.

Peter W. Singer, a fellow at the Brookings Institution and author of "Corporate Warriors," estimates that there are 20,000 to 30,000 civilians in Iraq performing traditional military functions, from maintaining weapons systems to guarding supply convoys.

If you add foreigners involved in reconstruction and oil work, the total soars to 50,000 to 75,000.

To put this into perspective: All of Washington's allies combined account for 23,000 troops in Iraq.

In the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, Singer quips that "President George W. Bush's 'coalition of the willing' might thus be more aptly described as the 'coalition of the billing.'"

Let us stipulate that most contractors are upstanding, hardworking individuals who perform valuable and dangerous work.

At least 175 have been killed and 900 wounded in Iraq.

But their labor has been tarnished by scandals and snafus too numerous to ignore.

Oil-services giant Halliburton and the security firm Custer Battles, among others, have been accused of swindling U.S. taxpayers.

Other contractors are said to have been simply ineffective.

Vinnell Corp. did such a poor job of training Iraqi army recruits that half of its first battalion walked off the job.

The Army had to step in to perform the work itself.

Other companies have been accused of human rights violations:

Interrogators from CACI International were in the middle of the Abu Ghraib mess.

And still others have caused major problems by failing to coordinate with the military chain of command.

The most notorious example was the decision by four Blackwater employees to enter Fallouja on March 31, 2004, without notifying the local Marine garrison.

Their well-publicized deaths in an ambush forced the Marines into a costly offensive to try to regain control of the city.

There is nothing new or nefarious about privatizing military support functions.

But, in Iraq, the contractors aren't just building latrines or staffing mess halls.

They're also running around with assault rifles and black body armor performing "tactical" functions.

Many are well-trained U.S. or British veterans, but others are Rambo wannabes or sordid desperados.

Among the mercenaries who have surfaced in Iraq are South Africans who were members of apartheid-era death squads and Chileans who served in Pinochet's security services.

When U.S. service members are accused of wrongdoing, they are investigated and, if necessary, court-martialed.

That's not the case with civilians who are generally not covered by the laws of their home countries for crimes committed abroad.

The Iraqi legal system could hold them to account, but in practice Baghdad won't do anything that might lead to an exodus of foreign firms.

Dozens of U.S. and British soldiers have been prosecuted for misconduct in Iraq — but not a single contractor.

A lack of accountability leads to occurrences such as those described by four former Custer Battles employees who claim that poorly trained Kurds on the firm's payroll killed innocent motorists.

In one incident, a guard supposedly fired his AK-47 into a passenger car to clear a traffic jam.

In another, an aggressive driver in a giant pickup truck allegedly pulverized a sedan with children inside.

When true (the firm denies any wrongdoing), such incidents only create more insurgent recruits.

U.S. policymakers argue that they have to rely on private help because the U.S. armed forces simply aren't big enough to do everything, and allies have not made up the shortfall.

But that's an argument for expanding the armed forces, not for hiring a lot of freelance gunslingers.

Administration officials complain that a bigger army is too expensive, but are they really saving money by relying on privateers?

The most valued contractors are experienced former U.S. Special Forces operatives whose training cost the Pentagon hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They are being lured out of uniform by the promise of making $500 to $1,000 a day.

(If they stay in the service they'll be lucky to make $140 a day.)

And where does that money come from?

Pretty much all the foreign firms in Iraq are paid by the U.S. Treasury.

So the government is in competition with itself for its most skilled and hard-to-replace soldiers.

Does this sort of outsourcing really make sense?

end quotes

To the BUSH CO.'s?

Of course, it does!

IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY, STUPID!

Livyjr, as you well know, the opinions, the thoughts, the words, you use in your postings are certainly EXACTLY the same as mine and, I feel sure , of many, many others, both here in CGCS and outside of CGCS.

So ???

The problem is that sometimes, I have a feeling that all the postings put up on this thread by you and all others who participate and who feel the same way are very similar to the pastor who preaches to the choir.

And the point is???

I believe that getting these words out of this forum and into the hands and heads of others who are not part of this forum should be a priority for us.

We are not national columnists and we do not have a media vehicle but that does not mean we are completely impotent in putting forth our views.

How do we do this???

I am not as sure of the how., as I am of the " why ".

What would you think of the idea of you, jeffmoskin, ( if he is for it ) and any others who agree, of starting to bounce some ideas around.

Eventually, not too long in the future, we may find there is a way to add our voices collectively to those who are doing their best to expose the lies, the incompetence, the hypocrisy, and the DANGERS of this administration and it's followers.

It is inconceivable that we will not be able to come up with some ideas to make ourselves heard.

On Cnn, on the Judy Woodruff show, at about 4:15 every day some time is given to two females who refer constantly to other forums and present the views of the forum members.

Whether we are in agreement with Judy Woodruff's political opinions does not matter. She has a large following and our goal is to reach as many people as we can. There ought to be a way we can have CGCS opinions quoted on that
show.

Probably, we will need the help of the administrators/moderators of CGCS at some point.

In the meantime there should be something we can do to put together some sort of a plan.

What do you think?

Is this just a fantasy?

A.B.

Oh, no, Mr. A.B., it most certainly is no fantasy!

One, I am a believer in what Einstein said, that God don't play dice!

ALL THINGS UNDER HEAVEN, in their time!

I don't think this forum would exist, if there was not purpose for it, to be truthful, and certainly, this thread would not exist, were I not inspired each day to be here, and not somewheres else, and so ....

When I first came in here, I was talking about a book that I had been given, and read, entitled "The Power of Many" by Christian Crumlish.

Now, the author of this book is really one of the people to consult on this issue you are raising, but I think it is even easier than that, at first!

A key is Yahoo Groups!

What is needed is a type of electronic conduit from here, this forum, and the various threads in it, over to various Yahoo Groups, and from there, dissemination just flows naturally!

THAT IS GRASS ROOTS!

As to these other sites, well, that is just a process that has to be initiated, and then that will flow, too!

As for this thread, it is necessary, as are the other threads as well, BECAUSE THIS IS THE NECESSARY BULK STORAGE that you have to have compiled to make your various points to these other mediums!

I cut and paste from here over to various individuals who are themselves hooked up to groups through Yahoo, and I also send stuff over from here, via "cut-and-paste" to a non-politically-aligned veteran's network, who are themselves most definitely fed up and disgusted with GUTLESS Washington, D$$$C$$$.

It's just a process, Mr. A.B., and I don't trouble myself over all the details because this thread, and yours over in "Religion and Politics" are to me where my attention is warranted, right now, at least!

To make any point at all, we need a body of evidence, or a body of data, or both!

That is what this thread is all about!

It is a virtual record composed of the PUBLIC RECORD, from OUT THERE, where we all must live OUR lives as living, breathing human beings on this earth of OURS!

Yes, it is true, our various personal impressions on this or that are recorded in here, too, like graffiti on Pompeii's walls, BUT ....

It is what comprises LIFE as we see it through the eyes of the various "allegedly objective" mainstream print media in OUR America that makes up the bulk of this thread, as opposed to our own solely subjective views, AND UNLESS that collective data says something coherent, there is no point in putting a lot of effort into any other endeavors, like trying to get a message out to the world, WHEN THERE SIMPLY IS no coherent message!

Now, however, we have been at this for a sufficient time after the November elections, and a ton of dust has settled, and so, people's minds are now free to consider new things, and thus, a moment emerges that just did not exist before, and guess what, Mr. A.B., we are ready for it!

And here I am very much in agreement with you, Mr. A.B., about "political opinions".

I have my own thoughts, because my LIBERTY allows me to, and I allow all others the same LIBERTY as I have in that regard, and so as far as I am concerned, I would have a duty to Judy Woodruff to protect her LIBERTY by affording her the opportunity to have and hold, and/or change at her will, whatever political beliefs she chose to have!

That would not preclude me from being able to converse with her!

In fact, since we would be communicating as equals, I am sure the dialogue would be educating and rewarding, and my God, I could even learn something from it!

And whoever knows?

But venture nothing, and no possible gain can occur!

And flip up to the top of the page, where the official logo is now "BRIDGING THE GAP between political labels and issues!"

SEE!

Evolution is happening, even as we are speaking of it in here!

SO!

How about that for synchronicity, will you?

And speaking of evolution, where have things evolved to in Iraq, since last we were there?

Hop on the magic carpet, hang on, and we shall see:

Mideast - AFP

"Iraqi police chief gunned down as coalition talks drag on"

2 hours, 4 minutes ago

SAMARRA, Iraq (AFP) - Insurgents gunned down an Iraqi police chief and blew up the top of a centuries-old minaret as Sunni Arab leaders feuded over their role in a government still a long way from being finalized.

In a surprise development, Sunni clerics issued a fatwa, or religious edict, encouraging their people to join the country's armed forces.

The police chief of the tense town of Baladruz northeast of Baghdad, Colonel Hatem Rashid, was killed by gunmen overnight in the latest assassination of top army and police officers.

In the restive city of Samarra, north of Baghdad five gunmen, including four Syrians, were killed in clashes with US and Iraqi forces, Major General Rashid Flaih of the Iraqi police commandos said, adding that 12 suspects were captured and weapons seized.

The local hospital said it received five bodies.

This came after the top layer of the towering 9th-century spiral minaret of the Malwiya mosque in Samarra, a national archaeological treasure, was damaged in a blast that occurred just two weeks after the departure US troops stationed there.

Samarra continues to be an insurgent battleground as Iraqi and US forces press efforts to rid the mainly Sunni Arab city of insurgents.

A car bomb in the city centre on Thursday killed seven people.

The Romanian government meanwhile scrambled to secure the release of three of its nationals taken hostage in Iraq.

New photographs of the three journalists who went missing earlier in the week were shown on Romanian television after the trio and their US-Iraqi guide were shown late Wednesday on Al-Jazeera television cowering under the pointed rifles of two masked man.

"We are making an enormous effort, unprecedented for the Romanian state," said Foreign Minister Razvan Ungureanu, whose government has 800 soldiers deployed in Iraq.

Amid the continuing violence, Iraq's main political blocs were still far from forming a government two months after landmark elections.

The main stumbling block is a desire by Shiites and Kurds alike to include the embittered Sunni Arab community, which largely boycotted the elections.

The Kurds are also keen for the secular bloc of outgoing Prime Minister Iyad Allawi to join a new governing coalition to temper the influence of the religious parties that dominate the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance (UIA).

"We are still looking forward to participation but according to our terms," Qassim Daoud, a member of Allawi's list, told AFP.

Daoud said negotiators were meeting regularly with Shiites and Kurds and that the focus was still on nailing agreement on common principles rather than the distribution of cabinet posts.

A negotiator from Allawi's list said they wanted to be an equal partner in any coalition government with the right to dissolve it if they disagreed with any of its actions.

"We want to be true partners and not just to tag along," said Hussein al-Shaalan.

The Shiite tribal leader from southern Iraq scolded some elements of the Sunni leadership for trying to gain maximum leverage in a process they had shunned.

"The Sunnis who say they represent their community must be realistic and comprehend the gravity of the situation otherwise they will hurt themselves and their people," he said.

Sunnis could not even agree Tuesday on a nominee for the post of parliament speaker, which both Shiites and Kurds want reserved for the community that dominated successive Iraqi governments before the 2003 US-led invasion.

The assembly is due to meet again Sunday to take another stab at choosing a speaker and two deputies

As the politicians bickered, a group of 64 Sunni clerics issued a fatwa calling on members of their community to join the Iraqi police and army, which have so far been dominated by the majority Shiites.

"Foreign troops are hated by Iraqis ... I'm happy to see Iraqi police and soldiers controlling the situation in my country," said Sheikh Abdul Ghafur al-Samarrai, one of the signatories and a senior member of the Committee of Muslim Scholars, which boycotted the elections.

"Why do we have people from the north or south coming to our cities?"

"We want people from our cities to be serving their own people."

Thousands of newly recruited Iraqi soldiers, many of them from Baghdad or the Shiite south, were sent last autumn to keep the peace in Sunni cities like Mosul, Samarra and Fallujah following major military operations there.

Many Sunni Arabs served in the security forces under Saddam Hussein's regime and were enraged by the decision of the US-led occupation administration to dissolve his armed forces.

And speaking of the corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, quess who made the national news for finally getting something right, like having a budget in place on time, for the first time in 20 years?

Of course, it appears that the budget has "gaping holes" in it, and so, it would look as if the New York State Legislature were incompetent to do two things right, one of which would be to be on time, and the other, more important thing WOULD BE to be right, such as having a budget that actually balanced!

Talk about boys that can't walk and chew bubblegum, these clowns just might take the cake!

Politics - AP

"NY Meets First Budget Deadline in 20 Years"

Fri Apr 1, 4:14 AM ET

By MICHAEL GORMLEY, Associated Press Writer

ALBANY, N.Y. - The state Legislature passed a $105 billion budget Thursday that increases school funding, makes university tuition cheaper and puts transportation projects in the hands of voters.

But its most remarkable feat is that for the first time in 20 years, the budget passed on time.

The dubious title of consecutive late budget champ now rests with California, with 18.

That state is the leader in state government spending, with New York second, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Legislature declared the budget complete although some contentious issues were tabled to help hit the deadline.

Disagreements with Gov. George Pataki could delay enactment.

"What we have accomplished today, we have accomplished as one Legislature, driven by the spirit of bipartisanship to achieve one goal — government at its finest," said Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat.

"It's an on-time budget, but it's certainly not a final budget," said Pataki, a Republican who admitted he may issue some vetoes.

"There are gaping holes that have to be closed."

The agreement, however, appears to end the annual angst of school districts and nonprofit agencies doing state tasks.

The uncertainty of funding as late as Aug. 11 — the date the budget was adopted last year — threatened state services.

The budget eliminates a $500 increase in public college tuition in the fall and annual increases for each class after that and provides a near-record increase in funding to most public schools.

It will impose higher motor vehicle fees and fees for camping in state parks, and it continues a sales tax on clothes that was set to expire.

The budget also puts a bond issue to voters in November asking whether the state should borrow $2.9 billion to pay for improvements to the Metropolitan Transit Authority and avoid a fare increase for New York City's subways and other commuter routes, as well as fix roads and bridges outside the city.
___

On the Net:

http://www.state.ny.us

http://www.ncsl.org

http://www.manhattan-institute.org

And speaking of incompetence, what's this:

White House - AP

"Bush Social Security Analogy Questioned"

Fri Apr 1,10:17 AM ET

By GLEN JOHNSON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Out on the hustings, President Bush likes to make a case for allowing younger workers to invest some of their Social Security taxes by citing the example of the Thrift Savings Plan, private investment accounts available to members of Congress and other federal employees.

"Doesn't it make sense for members of Congress to give younger workers the opportunity to do the same thing with their money that they get to do in their retirement system?" the president asked this week in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, baiting his congressional opponents.

"Frankly, if it's good enough for federal workers and elected officials — putting aside some of your own money in a personal savings account — it ought to be good enough for all workers in America."

What Bush fails to mention is that his accounts differ from Thrift Savings Plan accounts in a key way:

They would be carved out of the Social Security taxes nongovernment workers pay.

By contrast, federal employees get their accounts in addition to a traditional Social Security benefit check.

Democrats have said they would be much more inclined to embrace the private accounts — the signature item of the president's proposed Social Security overhaul — if they, too, were treated as an add-on to the traditional benefit check, rather than a partial replacement for it.

One Republican, Florida Rep. Clay Shaw, who oversees a House Social Security subcommittee, has filed legislation that would create the accounts as an addition to the program.

But so far the broader debate over ensuring Social Security's long-term solvency has stalled over opposition to the president's "carve-out" accounts.

"It is just so unfair, misleading and fraudulent," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said of the president's references to the Thrift Savings Plan.

The Nevada Democrat accused the administration of using carve-out accounts as a Trojan horse for eliminating Social Security, by siphoning off the taxes that pay benefits.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the top Democrat in the House, said:

"I think what the president is demonstrating is the weakness of the argument he is out perpetuating."

"It's the classic case of you can put lipstick on a pig ... but it's still a sow."

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president does not highlight the Thrift Savings Plan because of the way it is funded but because of the investment options and risk management it affords.

"The president talks about the TSP in the context of a safeguard approach," Duffy said.

"And, conceptually, it is the same thing if you — voluntarily — are given the option to set aside funds in a limited amount of investment options that might get a better return over a set period of time."

Federal employees, including members of Congress, have a retirement program that is the model of what most investment advisers suggest for any worker.

Advisers liken it to a three-legged stool.

The employees pay into Social Security, qualifying them for a government retirement check.

A portion of their pay also goes into a pension program, the Federal Employees' Retirement System, which pays a benefit based on their tenure.

And they have the option to participate in a so-called defined contribution program, the Thrift Savings Program.

Like a private-sector 401(k), it lets workers make contributions — a portion of which the government matches — that can be invested five different ways.

Those include government and corporate bond funds, plus a stock fund that tracks the S&P 500.

The stock funds performed well in the 1990s, with annual returns over 37 percent one year.

But after the 2001 recession, they have posted annual losses as high as 22 percent.

Over the most recent 10-year period, all the funds were profitable, according to the plan's Web site.

The private accounts the president has proposed for younger workers would be funded with up to 4 percentage points of the 12.4 percent payroll tax they now pay into Social Security.

On the stump, Bush does not mention the different manner in which the Thrift Savings Program is funded, only the example it should provide in the Social Security debate.

As Duffy suggested, the president also highlights the controls on investments in Thrift Savings:

"For example, federal employees can't take their money and put it in the lottery, or you can't take it to the racetrack," Bush told the Cedar Rapids crowd.

At the Iowa event, the president was joined on stage by a retired federal worker who reveled in the benefits of having a retirement program diversified by the add-on nature of the Thrift Savings Program.

The retiree, Joe Studer of Robins, Iowa, gets a pension from the precursor to Social Security for federal workers hired before 1984, the Civil Service Retirement System.

He also draws money from an Individual Retirement Account, which is available to all government and civilian employees, and has the proceeds of his Thrift Savings Plan.

"My Thrift Savings Plan is approaching $100,000," the 67-year-old told the presidential audience.

The following post was copied from a thread posted by Paulie.

It covers the situation so well I decided to just paste it on this thread.

It invoves calling your two senators and expressing your opinion concerning this latest sneaky move by the majority party to go completely against a Senate tradition of many years and could further entrench the Neo Cons in power even though it is against the best interest of America.

I am also going to post this on the thread " President Bush Vs. The Holy Bible. " because it is so important.

A.B.

Apr 1 2005, 12:01 PM Post #1


Advanced Member Paulie


Group: Moderator
Posts: 701
Joined: 6-November 04
Member No.: 806



The US Senate is contemplating changing the Senate rules to eliminate the right to FILIBUSTER judicial nominees. That means only a simple vote of 51 would force a vote on a nominee and to approve the nominee. This means the President and the GOP can appoint, for a lifetime, any judicial nominee, no matter how radical and unqualified they may be. One pending nominee is William Haynes II; he is currently the Pentagon chief counsel and the architect of the administration's torture policy at Aubo Ghraib and Guantamamo Bay.

Four Republican Senators have already broken ranks and have come out against the rules change. That means that the fate of the "Right to filibuster" rests on 1 Republican vote.

This country needs your help. Write to your Republican Senator and tell them you do not think the way the Senate has been conducting business for the past 200 years should be changed and tell them why.

Many of you have written that we need to keep working, moving forward and fighting for our deals, values and vision of what America is, and can become. This is your chance to make a difference.

Write or call your Republican Senators. Thank You

And speaking of the weather, am I going to get washed away this weekend?

"East Coast on weekend flood watch - Areas from Alabama to Massachusetts to get drenched"

NBC News and news services

Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET April 1, 2005

The East Coast from Alabama to Massachusetts was told to be prepared for possible severe flooding through the weekend as storms make their way north from the south.

Thunderstorms packing winds of more than 60 mph were expected through much of the Gulf Coast and parts of the Southeast on Friday.

The most severe weather was expected in the Deep South states and the Florida Panhandle.

By Saturday, parts of New York, Massachusetts and western Pennsylvania could see two to five inches of rain.

On Thursday, heavy rain produced flash flooding or river flooding in Alabama, Georgia, the Carolinas and Florida Panhandle.

Alabaster, Ala., reported nearly 3 inches of rain by midday.

Along the West Coast, a cold front Friday could bring up to 10 inches of snow in the Cascades and Olympic mountains in the Pacific Northwest.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

And speaking of the OLD WAYS, and the BASE, and the ANTINOMIAN PRIME, himself:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"Schiavo case will shape political debate - Did GOP mobilize its conservative base or overreach?"

ANALYSIS

By Dana Milbank

Updated: 10:34 p.m. ET March 31, 2005

Terri Schiavo is dead, but the passions stirred by the fight over her life will shape the political debate for a long time to come.

Republicans say the Schiavo case has mobilized their conservative base for the struggles over judicial nominations and a likely Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

In defeat, they hope to make Schiavo's death into a rallying point for a broader "culture of life" movement to secure judges and a justice who would restrict abortions.

Democrats, backed by public opinion polls, say the conservatives overreached and that the GOP now appears to be a captive of the religious right.

They say the Schiavo dispute, on top of struggles over stem cell research and gay rights, will cause a backlash by moderate Americans.

The diverging interpretations reflect larger electoral strategies by both parties.

Democrats, following a traditional approach, believe they can return to power by staking out ground as the party of the center.

Republicans, using a strategy employed successfully by President Bush in the 2004 elections, believe the key is not in appealing to the middle but in motivating its active conservative base.

The battle over Schiavo's symbolism has already begun.

Tony Perkins, president of the Christian policy group Family Research Council, issued a statement after Schiavo's death blaming the judiciary (even though it was mostly conservative judges who rejected the intervention by Bush and Congress.)

"This is a tragic and unfortunate event that should awaken Americans to the problems in our court system," he said.

"As many in the nation mourn the passing of Terri Schiavo, we should remember that her death is a symptom of a greater problem:

that the courts no longer respect human life."

‘Political crack-up’

By contrast, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal, in an article published around the time of Schiavo's death, said Republicans are undergoing a "political crackup" as damaging as the Massachusetts decision to condone same-sex marriage was for Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign.

"The Bush administration doesn't have a faith-based initiative; it is a faith-based initiative," he wrote in Salon.

The most direct consequence of the Schiavo affair is likely to be a push for federal and state legislation; lawmakers in both parties have proposed laws that would make it more difficult to remove life support in cases where the patients' wishes are disputed.

The Senate health committee and House Government Reform Committee, among others, will examine parts of the issue.

But experts say changes are largely unnecessary.

In the three decades since the Karen Ann Quinlan case, there have been only a few big legal battles over the "right to die."

Alan Meisel, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said only one case in several thousand winds up in litigation -- hardly a legal crisis.

"Schiavo is the exception that proves the rule: We haven't had a lot of agonizing cases," said Bruce Fein, a former Reagan administration lawyer.

Beyond its direct impact, the Schiavo dispute is likely to color all sorts of policy debates, and, depending on how those turn out, could be part of the theme in next year's midterm elections.

Conservatives have begun to tie the case to their larger effort to win judges opposed to abortion.

"It is entirely possible that in her death Terri Schiavo will become a symbol for many people about a disturbing trend in American culture," said Gary Bauer, a prominent conservative activist.

Predicting a donnybrook over the eventual Supreme Court nominee, he said the Schiavo case "will make more acute the feeling at the grass roots that too many of the most important decisions are being made by unelected judges."

It is, of course, difficult to argue that the Schiavo case would have turned out differently if more of Bush's conservative judicial nominees had been confirmed.

Conservative judges were at least as likely as liberals to oppose federal intervention.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, a Reagan appointee, rejected the Schiavo appeal, and William H. Pryor Jr., whom Bush has seated temporarily on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in hopes of winning his confirmation to that court, did not dissent publicly from the decision not to hear the case.

Key opinions relevant to the case were written by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia.

‘Founding Fathers' blueprint’

It was, in fact, an appellate judge appointed by President George H.W. Bush who wrote a ruling Wednesday criticizing the president and Congress for acting "in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people -- our Constitution."

But conservatives say this will not prevent them from linking the Schiavo case to others.

"Although the form of this issue was assisted suicide, it has a lot more relevance for abortion," said Jeff Bell, a Republican operative.

"State-sanctioned private killing is what this is about." Bell said he was not concerned about public opinion, because "it's very clear the intensity is on the side of the people who thought this was an abomination."

Democrats, at first ambivalent on the issue and relatively quiet as the controversy played out, have been buoyed by polls such as one by CBS News last week finding that 82 percent opposed Bush and Congress involving themselves in the matter.

Three-quarters thought Congress got involved because of politics over principle, which could account for the 34 percent approval rating for Congress -- its lowest since 1997.

Democrats say they are encouraged that the dispute has put some of the party's more extreme characters, such as antiabortion activist Randall Terry, into prominent roles.

"The other side has overplayed its hand and taken a beating," said Democratic strategist Jim Jordan.

Some Republicans and conservatives have expressed worry that this may be true.

In an op-ed in the New York Times this week, former Republican senator John C. Danforth cited the Schiavo case as evidence that "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, usually supportive of Bush, called the federal intervention "a legal travesty, a flagrant violation of federalism and the separation of powers."

But Republicans and Democrats of all stripes are likely to return to party lines when the subject shifts to judicial nominations.

And that suggests the fight could be even nastier than the Schiavo affair.

Well, Mr. A.B.!

It seems that I can no longer post to your "Religion and Politics" thread on "George W. Bush v. Holy Bible"!

No idea why.

No messages, just a lock-out message from the management!

How about that?

In a just-released March 31, 2005 Decision of Federal Court for the Northern District of New York, with grave consequences to the common citizen in the Northern District of New York who must have the certification of an expert witness in order to file certain Petitions for Redress of Grievance in the Courts of the State of New York, where negligence or malfeasance by the state or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, a recently-appointed Federal District Court Judge has refused to grant injunctive relief to the Plaintiff therein, a New York State licensed professional engineer and certified associate public health engineer, that would have given him protection of law in the State of New York while giving testimony in court ON BEHALF OF the citizens of the State of New York, against the State of New York, or one of its political subdivisions.

The issue before the Court in that matter, Case No. 1:03-CV-753, Matter of Plante, P.E. v. State of New York et al., requiring injunctive relief from the Federal District Court is a retaliatory practice in the Northern District of New York employed against an expert witness against the State of New York, BY THE STATE, where it simply removes the expert witness, as a witness against itself, by the expedient of having one of its doctors issue a signed declaration, SIGHT UNSEEN, that the witness in fact is an alleged dangerous mental patient who requires immediate incarceration in a secure mental health facility in the State of New York!

That order, known as a "9.45", then goes to the New York State Police, who capture the person, the intended victim, as it were, and take him to a designated secure mental health facility, for incarceration!

The "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN", it is called, and it is illegal, in that a doctor in the State of New York, BY FEDERAL and STATE LAW, both, cannot issue one of these orders IF he has never even seen the person, let alone examined him or her in person, as happened in this just-dismissed case involving this expert witness on behalf of the people of the State of New York, where the state's doctor issued a fraudulent "9.45" order for this expert witness, SIGHT UNSEEN, just days before this expert witness was going to file an affidavit on behalf of the citizens of Rensselaer County documenting continuing corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health having an adverse impact on the public health, safety, and well-being in the Town of Poestenkill, County of Rensselaer, State of New York!

In this case at bar, which was dismissed Sua Sponte by Bush-appointee Hon. Gary L. Sharpe on March 31, 2005, an illegal "9.45" order was issued against the Plaintiff on August 22, 2001, to intimidate and deter the Plaintiff from giving further evidence of corruption in the Rensselaer County Department of Health in a court of law!

Before the Federal District Court in support of a Motion for Injunctive Relief against the State of New York, the County of Rensselaer and the Town of Poestenkill in this matter was a July 13, 2004 letter from Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Patrick J. McGrath, wherein Justice McGrath, the chief criminal court judge in the County of Rensselaer, informed Federal Court Justice Sharpe that he, McGrath, had reviewed the evidence in the case as Rensselaer County's chief criminal court justice, and that he was concerned because that evidence supported a conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes, in addition to the civil charges contained in the Complaint in the matter.

Among the evidence which Judge McGrath relied upon in forming his conclusion of violation of federal and state criminal codes was a graphic video tape wherein one of the defendants can be seen physically assaulting and threatening the Plaintiff, and causing him bodily harm, to deter him from performing the duties of a licensed professional engineer in the State of New York, and a March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation which is at the very heart of this matter of OUR right to dissent, and to petition for redress of grievance, which apparently has just been stripped from us common citizens in the Northern District of New York by Bush-appointee Sharpe on March 31, 2005.

In that March 16, 1989 Report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which was before Judge Sharpe in the Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief as Exhibit J, a Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, based upon a review of substantial evidence, concluded:

"According to [name deleted], the results of the State's investigation were that New York State laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, Rensselaer County laws were not being followed by the Rensselaer County Health Department, and there was very little 'enforcement activity' even in the face of illegal sales."

"According to [name deleted], the object of any county health department (in the state of New York) is to protect the public, and not to facilitate developers, or development."

"In the case of Rensselaer County, it appears that the Rensselaer County Health Department was in business to facilitate developers and development rather than to protect the public!"

It was that last statement by this F.B.I. Special Agent in March of 1989 that set in motion the very chain of causality which has brought us up to this present moment in time in the Northern District of New York, where this Sua Sponte Dismissal of this Federal Civil Rights lawsuit and Plaintiff's Motion for Injunctive Relief by Federal District Court on March 31, 2005, now seriously jeopardizes the rights of all citizens in the Northern District of New York by removing from them the services of the licensed professional engineer whose expert witness testimony they would need to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the State of New York alleging a continuation of this same negligence by the State of New York and Rensselaer County Department of Health to this day.

In the State of New York, for a common citizen to file a Petition for Redress of Grievance with the courts of the state, where negligence by the state, or one of its political subdivisions is alleged, it is necessary to have expert witness testimony which supports the claim, otherwise the petition will be dismissed as frivolous, which can then result in sanctions being issued by the court.

By intimidating those few licensed engineers in the State of New York who are qualified to serve as expert witnesses in court against the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, through this illegal device of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN", the State of New York has effectively muzzled each and every one of us common citizens here in the Northern District of New York, since without this expert witness testimony, we are simply OUT OF COURT, forever, with no way back in, and the government corruption in the County of Rensselaer and the State of New York that was outlined in that series of F.B.I Reports annexed to the now-dismissed Motion for Injunctive Relief can now flourish with impunity!

The apparent sanctioning of this alleged illegal activity by the State of New York, and its political subdivisions, the County of Rensselaer, and the Town of Poestenkill, by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York as of March 31, 2005 now sends a very chilling message indeed to the residents of the Northern District of New York, to wit: "KEEP YOUR MOUTHS SHUT, OR YOU WILL BE NEXT!"

And so, that sucking sound we hear up here is the protection of law going right out the window, and that clanging sound we hear is the massive door of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York slamming shut in OUR faces!

And so it goes, here in the Northern District of New York, for the constitutional right of the common man, and woman in the State of New York to redress of grievance, and the right to dissent against corrupt governmental activities in the State of New York, and its political subdivisions that adversely impact the public health, safety, and well-being of those of us in the State of New York who also reside in the Northern District as it is defined by the United States government!

Going, going, gone!

As of March 31, 2005!

For those who may be interested, I have started a new thread on this above subject over in the "JUDICIAL" section, where I intend to further dissect this case, in order to demonstrate more clearly its ramifications to some of us, anyway, who are concerned with what are known as "TORTS" committed against us by others, such as unscrupulous land developers, acting in concert with what is supposed to be OUR government, but in fact, as is clear, at least to those of us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE, from the evidence in this case, IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL, but instead is just a perversion of the word, which is what EMPIRE STATE politics are really all about - "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG", and consequences to the common man and woman BE DAMNED!

Which brings me directly to this next story, as follows:

washingtonpost.com Highlights

"DeLay wants panel to review role of courts - Democrats criticize his attack on judges"

By Mike Allen

Updated: 2:23 p.m. ET April 2, 2005

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), under fire from Democrats for what they consider threatening remarks about federal judges, plans to ask the Judiciary Committee to undertake a broad review of the courts' handing of the Terri Schiavo case, his office said yesterday.

DeLay's office did not specify exactly what the majority leader wants the committee to do.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set the areas of authority for federal courts, but it was unclear what could be done by the committee in response to the Schiavo case, in particular.

The majority leader said Thursday he wants to examine what he called the "failure" of state and federal courts to protect Schiavo, who died 13 days after the court-ordered withdrawal of her feeding tube.

Threat to judges?

DeLay issued a statement asserting that "the time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

He later said in front of television cameras that he wants to "look at an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president."

Democrats continued to criticize DeLay yesterday, with Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) charging that the Republican might have broken a federal statute against threatening U.S. judges.

"Threats against specific federal judges are not only a serious crime, but also beneath a Member of Congress," Lautenberg wrote.

"Your attempt to intimidate judges in America not only threatens our courts, but our fundamental democracy as well."

DeLay's comments reflected the frustration and anger that some conservatives say they felt when no judge or justice was willing to act in response to congressional legislation, which President Bush flew home from Texas to sign last week, calling on the federal courts to review the case, which has been handled by Florida courts.

'Questions need to be answered'

The Senate confirmed about 200 of Bush's judicial nominees during the past four years, and most of them were considered to be conservative.

Nonetheless, DeLay and many other conservatives say they feel betrayed by the courts in the Schiavo case.

DeLay told Fox News interviewer Brit Hume on Thursday that there are "a lot of questions that need to be answered."

"We need to look at this case," DeLay continued.

"We need to look at the failure of the judiciary in Florida."

"We need to look at the failure of the judiciary on the federal level."

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Thursday that "at a time when emotions are running high, Mr. DeLay needs to make clear that he is not advocating violence against anyone."

Dan Allen, DeLay's communications director, said that DeLay was "once again expressing his disappointment in how the courts clearly ignored the intent of the legislation that was passed."

And just WHO is really "OUT-OF-CONTROL", here in OUR America, and exactly WHAT is a "conservative judge"?

For answers as to the first prong of that question, which then leads us over to the second prong, I went back into VOLUME I of Life in OUR America for this following article which concerns itself with the QUINTESSENTIALLY ETHICALLY-CHALLENGED REPUBLICAN, himself, none other than TOMMY DELAY, himself:

November 18, 2004

"House G.O.P. Acts to Protect Chief" By CARL HULSE, NY Times

WASHINGTON, Nov. 17 - Spurred by an investigation connected to the majority leader, House Republicans voted Wednesday to abandon an 11-year-old party rule that required a member of their leadership to step aside temporarily if indicted.

Meeting behind closed doors, the lawmakers agreed that a party steering committee would review any indictments handed up against the majority leader, Representative Tom DeLay of Texas, or any other members of the leadership team or committee chairmen, to determine if giving up a post was warranted.

The revision does not change the requirement that leaders step down if convicted.

The new rule was adopted by voice vote.

Its chief author, Representative Henry Bonilla of Texas, said later that only a handful of members had opposed it.

The Republicans' old rule was adopted in August 1993 to put a spotlight on the legal troubles of prominent Democrats.

Mr. Bonilla said revising it had been necessary to prevent politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

"Attorneys tell me you can be indicted for just about anything in this country, in any county or community," said Mr. Bonilla, an ally of Mr. DeLay.

"Sometimes district attorneys who might have partisan agendas or want to read their name in the paper could make a name for themselves by indicting a member of the leadership, regardless of who it may be, and therefore determine their future."

"And that's not right."

Mr. DeLay said he had not instigated the change.

But he applauded it nevertheless, saying it could deprive "political hacks" of an ability to influence the makeup of the Republican leadership.

Republican lawmakers "fixed the rules so that Democrats cannot use our rules against us," he said.

Mr. DeLay said he did not expect to be indicted, but added, "This has nothing to do with whether I was going to be or not going to be.''

The comments of Mr. DeLay and Mr. Bonilla were clearly directed at Ronnie Earle, the district attorney in Travis County, Tex., including Austin, who won indictments earlier this year against three political associates of the majority leader.

The investigation by Mr. Earle, a Democrat, involves charges of illegally using corporate money to help Republicans win state legislative races in 2002.

Those Republican victories in turn gave the state party enough legislative muscle to win redistricting changes that helped Congressional Republicans gain five additional seats in Texas on Nov. 2.

Despite the indictments of his associates, Mr. DeLay has not been called to testify, and Mr. Earle has not said whether the congressman is a target.

Not all Republicans agreed with Wednesday's rule change, which was adopted after some two and a half hours of debate.

"This is a mistake," said Representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut.

When the Republicans gained control of the House in the elections of 1994, "we were going to be different,'' Mr. Shays said.

But "every time we start to water down what we did in '94," he said, "we are basically saying the revolution is losing its character."

Democrats and outside watchdogs bitterly criticized the change.

"Today Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic whip.

"They unabashedly abandoned any pretense of holding themselves to a high ethical standard, by deciding to ignore criminal indictments of their leaders as reason for removal from leadership posts in the Republican Party."

Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, a group that follows campaign finance issues, said:

"With this decision, we have gone from DeLay being judged by his peers to DeLay being judged by his buddies."

"It's an absurd and ludicrous new rule and an affront to the American people."

Republicans said Democrats had no standing to criticize them, since House Democratic rules have no provision to remove indicted party leaders, though they do require indicted committee chairmen to step aside.

The minority leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Wednesday that her party would quickly expand the provision to cover leadership posts as well.

"Republicans have reached a new low," Ms. Pelosi said.

"It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

The change follows two admonitions that Mr. DeLay received from the bipartisan House ethics committee this fall, one involving a House floor vote, the other a fund-raiser.

Mr. DeLay has built strong loyalty in the House over the years by helping raise campaign money and paying close attention to the personal legislative interests of Republican lawmakers, and the ethics committee's action angered some of his supporters in the chamber.

Mr. DeLay and many other House Republicans have criticized Mr. Earle's inquiry as highly partisan.

"Ronnie Earle is trying to criminalize politics," Mr. DeLay said.

"I think that is wrong."

Mr. Earle, in a statement issued by his office, said the Republican rule change would have no effect on the continuing investigation.

But he added, "It should be alarming to the public to see their leaders substitute their judgment for that of the law enforcement process."

House Republicans did not dispute the idea that the change had been brought on by the events in Texas but said most of the majority's lawmakers had also concluded that the rule was simply unfair.

"In my sincere opinion, it only provoked the timing" of the change, Representative Trent Franks of Arizona said of the Texas inquiry.

"When you look at the rule, it is an outrageous rule."

The new rule says that upon the return of an indictment against a committee chairman, a subcommittee chairman or a party leader, a steering committee made up of House leaders other than the accused lawmaker will have 30 days to recommend to the full Republican conference "what action, if any, the conference shall take concerning said member."

Though the change had been a subject of discussion for the last week, it was not submitted by Mr. Bonilla until right before a Tuesday deadline that Republicans had set to offer proposals for rules in the new Congress.

Mr. Bonilla and others said the Republican conference, including many members elected only two weeks ago, had been insistent on the revision.

"It is the right thing to do," said Representative John Carter of Texas, a former judge.

While House Republicans were acting on the rule, Congress continued its reorganization for 2005.

House Democrats and Senate Republicans re-elected their leadership teams for the most part.

In the only real race, Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina gained a one-vote victory over Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota to head the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which provides guidance and money for Republican candidates.

For those who may be interested, I have started a new thread on this above subject over in the "JUDICIAL" section, where I intend to further dissect this case, in order to demonstrate more clearly its ramifications to some of us, anyway, who are concerned with what are known as "TORTS" committed against us by others, such as unscrupulous land developers, acting in concert with what is supposed to be OUR government, but in fact, as is clear, at least to those of us up here in the corrupt EMPIRE STATE, from the evidence in this case, IS NOT OUR GOVERNMENT AT ALL, but instead is just a perversion of the word, which is what EMPIRE STATE politics are really all about - "GO ALONG TO GET ALONG", and consequences to the common man and woman BE DAMNED!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Livyjr -----

I read the posting you made here and also on the new thread with great interest.

Also with a great deal of amazement.

Don't know why I should be amazed.

Money talks! How much did you pay ANYBODY?

Probably nothing.

So you were outgunned from the getgo.

I suppose if you had hired a high priced lawyer with the right connections, you might have had a fighting chance.

Politics in the U.S.A. has always had its share of dirt.

Unfortunately, the political climate now is such that it gets dirtier and uglier all the time.

I still think you should feel blessed because you are you, and you are not them.

A.B.

CRACKPOT PROSECUTORS?

Hhhhmmmm!

Mr. Bonilla, HIMSELF A REPUBLICAN, and an alleged "lawmaker", to boot, TELLS US, the American people, THAT WE NEED HIM to protect US, by the vehicle of "preventing", IN HIS WORDS, politically inspired criminal investigations by "crackpot" prosecutors from determining the fate of top Republicans.

SO?

How about that, everybody?

Any takers?

Do we really need the ethically-challenged REPUBLICANS to protect us from alleged "crackpot prosecutors", OR DO WE REALLY NEED SOMETHING ELSE, ENTIRELY, like a clean sweep of OUR government to rid it of those who deprive US of OUR liberty and justice, by depriving us of due process and equal protection of law in the name of the TRI-PARTITE "GOD" of the REPUBLICANS, that being "GEETUS, MOOLAH and MAMMON"?

And what is a "crackpot prosecutor", anyway?

And how is that "determination" made?

Or shouldn't we really care?

Questions, folks, always questions!

SHOULD WE CARE?

OR SHOULD WE JUST SUCK OUR THUMBS, AND CONTINUE TO HIDE IN THE DEEPEST RECESSES OF OUR BASEMENTS, with OUR heads in the sand down there, pretending that this is America, a REPUBLIC with liberty and justice FOR ALL, when it clearly is not that, at all?

Your choice, of course, as always!

THEREFORE ....

Make it wisely, unless, of course, it is already too late, and then ....

Well, who knows?

Mr. A.B. thank you, first of all, for your interest in what goes on here in OUR America, independent of myself, who oftentimes is just a "weak reed" but for people like you, who are older than myself, and while perhaps now cynical, have not given up hope for tomarrow, here in OUR America.

I feel blessed that I have life, Mr. A.B., and that is that!

THEN ...

It is up to me what I do with that "life", and as for myself, that choice was made when I took an oath back in 1967 to "protect and defend" the United States Constitution from ALL of its enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Does that "oath" mean something, or is it just a bunch of crap, like it is to the "politicians" here in OUR America?

Up to me, right, Mr. A.B., 24/7?

And clearly the greatest enemies that OUR Constitution will ever have are those right here in OUR America, rather than some witless shaggy over in some jungle or desert in some place ten or twenty or thirty thousand miles from here, as George W. Bush and his sycophantic, boot-licking crowd would have us believe, while they are opening up OUR teasury to what I think is the biggest looting of all time by HIS people, FOR THEIR BENEFIT, at OUR expense.

The "WALK UP CALVARY HILL" is how I call this "dissenting citizen" role that I have taken on, and so ......

I guess it's up to me to see if MY BELIEFS about TRUTH, and JUSTICE and LIBERTY are really worth the hardships of defending them, against what is purported to be OUR government, but instead, appears to be nothing more than a huge malignancy that is festering and eating out the HEART AND SOUL of OUR America!

Well, Mr. A.B., as always, you see into the "heart of the matter" here, and in a few words, you have set down the "essence" for all of us to see, and then consider, if we are so inclined.

How much did I pay anyone?

Exactly nothing, to be truthful, which is what this is really all about!

And yes, I was outgunned, right from the moment before I even started, BUT ....

Oh, well!

So were the Spartans!

A rhetorical question, of course, that arises here, is SHOULD I HAVE HAD TO PAY SOMEONE, ANYONE for my own justice, here, like the judge, for example?

Or a "COURTHOUSE FIXER", maybe?

Or Eliot Spitzer?

"PAYING OFF", Mr. A.B., is a lot like "running"!

Once you start, how on earth do you ever stop again?

Better not to start, then, perhaps, and take those "lumps"?

Another question for OUR times, here in OUR America!

SO!

Stay tuned for further developments, as they happen!

LIVE!

LATE-BREAKING!

Life, in OUR America!

Well, Livyjr, you have hit that nail square on the head. We need to get you on Faux News as a replacement for those gasbags.

I feel your pain, as somebody once said. I am involved right now with the US government trying to steal my property in direct violation of the Constitution, a document that is more and more frequently being overlooked by the Bush Junta.

I talked to an attorney, the COURTHOUSE FIXER of whom you speak. He said he could "make a deal" which I presume means they only steal MOST of my property but not ALL of it. Of course, after deducting legal fees, I might as well kiss it goodbye.

Like you, I don't roll over that easily. But quite frankly, I have put a lot of time and effort into what could very likely return me absolutely zip.

It's tough living here in Bushworld.

But it beats living in the colony formerly known as Iraq.

I guess that really depends upon where you're sitting, doing your looking from!

And IF I was to ever get ON FAUX NEWS, then I would have to become NOT ONLY a GASBAG, but someone who would "TUNE" the news with "SPLICE JOBS" and such like, as well, and as I recall, my mother had no kids that I knew who are or ever were "gaited" that way!

Maybe that's why God had Al Gore invent the internet, so that the non-Gasbags among us would have some other place to hang out than over there at FAUX NEWS!

After all, it's really just "so fake" over there, and who wants that, when the real world beckons, and is just so accessible?

And here, jeffmoskin, I have to say that if it were just my own personal matter that was involved here, I would not bother to waste "community time" by bringing it in here, to discuss!

One of the things IN HERE that is so difficult to assess, of course, since each of us is but a pinprick on a great big globe, OUT THERE, and so has but very limited experience of what the world is really doing at any given minute, IS what PUBLIC SENTIMENT on any given issue really is, IN AREAS OTHER THAN where we ourselves live and reside, and here, I will direct myself to CITIZENSHIP, or what I think it is, anyway, AND HERE IS WHERE A KEY ISSUE OPENS UP, that must be considered by each of us as we communicate IN HERE across state boundaries, OUT THERE, and that is the concept of local rule prevails!

OR SHOULD IT?

This is a CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE with me, and those with whom I am similarly situated here in New York State, which would be all residents of Rensselaer County, at least, if not all residents of the State of New York, where it is the Attorney General of the State of New York itself who is advocating and defending the use of the "PSYCHIATRIC TAKEDOWN" witness elimination scheme as a political tool of "control" in the State of New York, DESPITE the fact that it violates both State and Federal law, as was noted by Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice McGrath in the papers that were before the Bush CONSERVATIVE in Federal District Court for the Northern District of New York!

I was BORN in Rensselaer County in the State of New York, and so, I am subject to the laws of the State of New York, and I am entitled to ALL of the protections of the Constitution of the State of New York, REGARDLESS OF WHAT GEORGE W. BUSH and TOMMY DELAY MAY HAVE TO SAY ABOUT IT, and I cannot be deprived OF ANY of those protections of law, without DUE PROCESS, and yet I was, with the KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT of the New York State Attorney General!

To "DETER" me from having my Constitutional rights in the State of New York upheld, I was physically assaulted and bodily harmed by a thug, a goon, acting with intent to do me bodily harm, and to further intimidate me from being a witness in Rensselaer County, ON VIDEOTAPE!

On videotape, the goon can clearly be heard to say that he was "protected" in Rensselaer County, and that he could assault me any time that he wanted with impunity!

Subsequently, a New York State Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation Investigator saw that videotape, and based upon that videotape, determined that the goon should be arrested!

That never happened, however, and the statements of the New York State Police Investigator were subsequently suppressed by the Office of the New York State Attorney General to hinder prosecution of the thug, and successfully so, to my detriment, AS WELL AS the cause of law and order here in the State of New York, which I am aligned with, AS A CITIZEN OF THIS STATE, pursuant o the provisions of the New York State Constitution!

Judge McGrath, WHO IS THE LOCAL Criminal Court Judge with authority in the matter under the New York State Constitution, questioned and challenged that conduct of the Office of the New York State Attorney General as itself being illegal, and the Bush CONSERVATIVE said, "SO WHAT?"

SAY WHAT?

EXCUSE ME!

"SO WHAT?"

In the context of the whole matter, and who is actually whom in Rensselaer County with respect to making determinations on matters of law and order in the County, PURSUANT TO THE NEW YORK STATE CONSTITUTION, it looks an awful lot to me, as a lifelong resident, that this Bush CONSERVATIVE just told MY local judge to go "**** himself", or "SOD OFF" as the British Royals like to say, and that has me more than a little curious, and concerned here, FOR WHERE DOES a Federal Judge get any authority at all to come down within a state in this union of OURS, ANY STATE, to okay conduct by the State Attorney General that not only strips the state resident of his protections of law in the State of New York, PURSUANT to the New York State Constitution, WITHOUT A SHRED of DUE PROCESS afforded, but borders on the criminal itself, according to the Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice!

This is much more than just a little incredible here, jeffmoskin, it is a grotesque burlesque, to boot, and more beyond that!

In fact, it is a joke!

A great big joke, and that is what I am supposed to accept as LAW in the State of New York, where I reside, and where I am entitled to the fullest protection of the New York State Constitution while I am a State resident?

No, sorry, I can't, and I won't!

Eliot Spitzer and the State of New York are not "immune" from the operation of law in the State of New York, despite what a Federal Court Judge may have to say about it, and that is really what the issue is with me, jeffmoskin:

STATE'S RIGHTS v. REPUBLICAN-IMPOSED TYRANNY AND OPPRESSION, plain and simple!

LIBERTY IS NOT DIVISIBLE!

Not ever!

Pass it along!

And what exactly IS the issue with Eliot Spitzer here?

Well, to answer that, let's first review this following article from Bloomberg News which concerns itself with Mr. Spitzer's "MONEY RAISING" efforts for his personal political purposes, while he is at the same time supposed to be the CHIEF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER of the State of New York:

Friday, December 12, 2003:

"Fund-raiser nets Spitzer $2 million - luncheon for likely gubernatorial candidate attracts hedge fund managers, lawyers"

by Matthew Cox, Bloomberg News:

New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Spitzer, the leader of investigations into Wall Street conflicts of interest and mutual fund trading, has said he is interested in running for governor in 2006.

Though he hasn't officially declared his candidacy, Thursday's fund-raiser was Spitzer's biggest ever.

His investigations of "certain aspects of the securities market doesn't mean there can't be or shouldn't be contributions from anybody within that sector, any more than it would mean because we bring consumer-type cases, no consumer manufacturer could contribute," Spitzer told reporters.

He said his campaign committee has "a very careful vetting process" to avoid accepting gifts from donors under scrutiny by his office.

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

The luncheon at the Sheraton New York Hotel drew hedge fund manager Daniel Nir of Gracie Capital LP, who with his wife, Jill Braufman, donated $50,000 in June; Cablevision President James Dolan; Miramax Film Corp. co-chairman Harvey Weinstein, and Melvyn Weiss, one of several lawyer donors who has sued securities firms for investors based on Spitzer's investigations.

"There are a lot of hedge funds that have not been trading the way the naughty ones have," said Roy Smith, a professor of finance at New York University.

"THEY WOULD LOVE TO HAVE MR. SPITZER INVESTIGATE ALL THEIR COMPETITION that's been too aggressive."

Spitzer's investigative work "gives investors a sense that someone's keeping an eye on what's in their best interest," said donor George Fox, founder of Titan Advisors, a hedge fund consultant.

Cynthia Darrison, managing director of the Spitzer campaign committee, said that the event attended by nearly 700 people generated more than $2 million.

"This is meant as a preemptive strike" with 35 months to go until the election, said Douglas Muzzio, professor of public affairs at Baruch College in New York.

"He's saying 'I can raise huge amounts of money.'"

end quotes

Yes, he certainly can.

But by "selling" what?

Or "who", perhaps?

SO!

Okay!

Let's see here!

On Friday, December 12, 2003, New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer collected more than $2 million at a political fund-raiser, with hedge fund managers and lawyers among the big donors, and said HE COULD ACCEPT CAMPAIGN FUNDS FROM THE INVESTMENT COMMUNITY WITHOUT COMPROMISING HIS ENFORCEMENT ROLE.

Right!

Check!

AND ...

A Spitzer campaign aide who declined to be identified said hedge funds, lawyers AND THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY were among his LEADING SOURCES of campaign MONEY.

Okay!

Right!

Check again!

I think I got all of that!

BUT ......

Didn't the F.B.I. say in March of 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to FACILITATE the REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

And then, on 8-22-01, didn't Eliot Spitzer sanction the unlawful "PSYCHIATRIC TAKE-DOWN" of the very witness who had gathered the evidence that the F.B.I then relied upon to form its own conclusion in March of 1989 that the Rensselaer County Department of Health was violating state and local laws to FACILITATE the REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

And then Eliot Spitzer allegedly took money, FROM THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY?

SO?

What did they buy, for their money?

Any quesses?

And who in Hell is checking up on Eliot Spitzer, anyway, beyond Rensselaer County Criminal Court Justice Pat McGrath, whose opinion really seems to count for exactly nothing at all the the WHITE NIGHT of BROADWAY, the inestimable Mr. Eliot Spitzer, himself?

Oh, that's right!

In all the excitement, why, I just plain forgot!

Eliot is!

Iraq.

Fast becoming our 51st state.

Bush may be fooling a whole bunch of Americans about Iraq, but the Middle East people are on to him.

Read on.

The American occupation used its power over the Iraqis to force voter turnout. Dahr Jamal reports Iraqi complaints that officials threatened to cut their monthly food ration if they did not vote. The extortion of Iraqi support for an American-initiated process undermines Bush'sclaim that the elections are for Iraqis benefit only.

Bush does not care that it is illegal under the Geneva Conventions for an occupying power to tamper with a conquered nation's government. He has instigated coups, under the cover of elections, that have empowered partners who will accept Israeli settlement of the West Bank and American bases in Iraq.

Mahmoud Abbas political biography suggests that he will endorse Sharon's plans to annex Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Abbas is an architect of the Oslo Accords that enabled Israel to build many of the settlements that have strangled Palestinian towns. The Bush administration is counting on him to disarm the Palestinian resistance and accept Israeli

Previous American-supported coups in the Middle East--Iran (1953) and Israel's Lebanon invasion (1982)--ended in disaster for the US and its clients. Manipulating the strings of a new set of puppets with a ballot will endear the Arab peoples neither to the US nor the new governments.- Published 31/3/2005 © bitterlemons-international.org

Caise D. Hassan is a Muslim American human rights activist of Palestinian descent. He is currently working on a book on the 1987 intifada.

A.B.

And leaving Eliot Spitzer and corruption in the State of New York, for a moment, let's update on the Bush Co.'s and Social Security:

"GOP's blitz loses punch - Democrats rally against Social Security plan, as public doubts Bush effort"

By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, New York Times
First published: Sunday, April 3, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Midway through their 60-day coast-to-coast blitz to promote fundamental revisions in Social Security, President Bush and others in his administration have been unable to pry loose any Democratic senators from the solid wall of opposition.

As a consequence, Republican lawmakers are beginning to doubt whether the President can succeed in establishing individual investment accounts under Social Security.

After appearing with the President on Wednesday at a Social Security rally in Iowa, Sen. Charles E. Grassley, Republican of that state and chairman of the Finance Committee, said, "There is not the significant momentum it takes to get a bill through the Senate."

In a separate interview, Grassley, who supports individual accounts and whose position makes him the most important senator on the issue, said that he planned to put Social Security legislation before his committee in July but added, "The President may not succeed in as clear-cut a manner as I might have hoped."

Some Republicans who met with constituents on Social Security during the two-week congressional recess, which ends Monday, reported that the President and his allies had managed to convince many people that the solvency of Social Security was in jeopardy and that the program needed to be overhauled.

But many Republicans said their constituents were wary about individual accounts as the best solution.

"Having just held 15 town meetings in my state," said Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa, whose district includes Cedar Rapids, where the President spoke, "I think it is clear that the solvency concern is taking root."

"It is also clear that support of personal accounts has maybe slightly increased, but opposition has hardened substantially."

Leach, who flew back to Washington with Bush on Air Force One and who said he was "open to the possibility of personal accounts," questioned whether the President could overcome the united front presented by the Democrats.

GRASSLEY Democrats, Leach said, look at this as their chance to take control of Congress.

Whatever the reason, people who have worked on Capitol Hill for generations said they could not remember a time when Democrats in the Senate were so unified.

Except for Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who says he has not made up his mind, every Democratic senator is committed to opposing diverting Social Security taxes into individual accounts.

"We have continued to stay together," said Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, "because the President's plan is so flawed."

Under Senate rules, no legislation can be brought to a vote without approval of 60 senators.

There are 55 Republicans in the Senate.

So even if all of them backed Bush's plan, he would still need five more votes.

In the House, where passage of legislation requires only a simple majority, Republican leaders could probably win passage of a Social Security bill by invoking party discipline.

But these leaders say they want the Senate to vote first on the issue to avoid a difficult and unnecessary vote in the House if Senate approval is not possible.

In an interview published this week in the National Journal, House Speaker Dennis Hastert said that even if Social Security legislation could pass through the Senate and House this year, there might not be time to negotiate a final bill until next year.

Administration officials say they are undaunted and still expect to win the fight.

"We're at the halfway mark of our 60-day tour and well beyond our events goal already," Treasury Secretary John Snow said on Friday.

"The national dialogue that the President called for in the State of the Union is well under way, and Social Security has been elevated to the top of the national political debate."

"We're making real progress."

On March 2, Snow began a campaign he called 60 Stops in 60 Days to promote Bush's Social Security goals.

Since then, the Treasury Department said, administration officials have participated in 108 events in 32 states, including more than 40 town meetings with senators and representatives.

Bush had 12 Social Security rallies in March, Vice President Dick Cheney four and Snow 10.

The Republican National Committee calculated that Republican House members held more than 500 town meetings over the recess.

The two sides stepped up their television advertising over the congressional recess.

Supporters of the President ran advertisements comparing the Social Security system to the Titanic and others showing a ticking stopwatch counting down the time until Social Security goes broke.

But there is a split among Republicans.

The Club for Growth, which raised more than $20 million last year to support Republican candidates, is running a commercial criticizing Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., because he has proposed legislation for individual accounts under Social Security that would include a tax increase.

AARP has ads on cable channels and in more than 200 markets comparing the administration's Social Security restructuring to the flattening of a house because the kitchen sink is clogged.

Lao Tze viewed the clash of ideologies as a fact of social evolution, but he observed, also, that some ideologies make inroads into the minds of people, while others cause disastrous counter-reactions!

He realized that resistance to ideas can be overcome - but only when indirect methods are employed will there be a lasting effect.

He called this "capturing without strategies."

That is why his strategist would rather "retreat a foot" than "advance an inch"!

CONVERSELY, when an aggression is used to impose an ideology on others, the reaction is also a direct one:

Strategy is met with strategy; weapon is matched against weapon; tensions escalate and escalate again!

Lao Tze dreaded this familiar pattern, and lamented:

"UNDERESTIMATING resistance will destroy my treasures!"

He was referring to his Three Treasures: compassion, moderation, and the courage not to be first in the world!

How can escalation be neutralized?

Lao Tze believed that the side that is so socially evolved that it would experience grief over the situation would be the side whose ideology would ultimately triumph!

- Commentaries on Tao Te Ching of Lao Tze, by R. L. Wing

"Lao Tze believed that the side that is so socially evolved that it would experience grief over the situation would be the side whose ideology would ultimately triumph!"

I thought about this for quite a while last night, and it just kept coming back to me that this would likely NOT BE George W. Bush's side, and so .....

Whoever else gets there first, wins!

And speaking of another necessary "player" here, in this little drama that has been playing itself out in the alleged corrupt EMPIRE STATE of New York, or perhaps, another "piece of the puzzle", we have as follows:

"Bruno's son starting own lobbying business - Client list likely to include Cablevision and horse racing giant Magna Entertainment"

By MARC HUMBERT, Associated Press
First published: Friday, April 1, 2005

ALBANY -- Kenneth Bruno, the son of state Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, said Thursday he has left New York's top-grossing lobbying firm to start his own company.

The younger Bruno said he expected to have some gold-chip clients.

"This is an exciting opportunity and I'm looking forward to continuing to represent my clients effectively," he said.

A leading critic of the influence of highly paid lobbyists on state government said "it is fascinating he is able to break out on his own like this."

"All lobbyists sell access, that's the name of the game," said Blair Horner of the New York Public Interest Research Group.

"What he's pitching his clients, I don't know."

"It certainly doesn't hurt to have the last name Bruno."

Bruno's father is the most powerful Republican in the state Legislature.

The younger Bruno is a former district attorney of Rensselaer County.

Bruno has worked for the last 21 months with the Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman and Dicker law-lobbying firm.

That firm took in $6.67 million from lobbying in 2004, according to reports filed with the state Lobbying Commission.

The new firm will be called Albany Strategies, and Bruno said he expects to represent Cablevision, Magna Entertainment, Yonkers Raceway and the New York Ambulette Coalition, among others.

Cablevision owns Madison Square Garden and Magna is one of North America's most powerful companies in the horse racing industry.

"It's highly unusual for someone to break out on their own and have that kind of client list, so he must be providing some service his clients really like," Horner said.

Has anybody reading this thread read Michael Ruppert's "Crossing the Rubicon"?

While there is a lot of speculation, the bottom line is:

1. We are hooked on OIL.

2. It is running out.

3. The Bush/Cheney Junta will do whatever it takes to "secure" Amerika's future needs, even if the Constitution is shredded in the process.


If ONLY we had started weaning ourselves and our profligate ways 30 years ago when we had the first oil shocks, we would NOT be in this situation today.

But that would have taken leadership.

That would have taken sacrifice.

We had neither. Now we are up to our necks, and it is 11 o'clock. Not a pretty picture at all. I wish I could leave my kids something better.

Regarding Israel/Palestine, whatever the resulution is, you can be sure the borders will NOT be the 67 ones. Reason: they are not secure.

I think Sharon's plan is to trade Gaza and some of the Negev for the 200,000+ settlers in East Jerusalem and use that settlement as a "buffer" to provide Israel with the security it would otherwise lack.

Gore Vidal was interviewed by City Pages:


The Undoing of America

Gore Vidal on war for oil, politics-free elections, and the late, great U.S. Constitution.

by Steve Perry

For the past 40 years or so of Gore Vidal's prolific 59-year literary career, his great project has been the telling of the American story from the country's inception to the present day, unencumbered by the court historian's task of making America's leaders look like good guys at every turn. The saga has unfolded in two ways: through Vidal's series of seven historical novels, beginning with Washington DC in 1967 and concluding with The Golden Age in 2000; and through his ceaseless essay writing and public appearances across the years. Starting around 1970, Vidal began to offer up his own annual State of the Union message, in magazines and on the talk circuit. His words were always well-chosen, provocative, and contentious: "There is not one human problem that could not be solved," he told an interviewer in 1972, "if people would simply do as I advise."

Though it's a dim memory now, Vidal and commentators of a similarly outspoken bent used to be regulars on television news shows. Vidal's most famous TV moment came during the 1968 Democratic Convention, when ABC paired him with William F. Buckley on live television. On the next to last night of the convention, the dialogue turned to the question of some student war protesters raising a Vietcong flag. The following exchange ensued:


Vidal: "As far as I'm concerned, the only sort of proto- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself. Failing that, I'll only say that we can't have--"

Buckley: "Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered."


That was TV in the pre-Information Age for you. These days Vidal, who put his Italian villa on the market a few months ago and moved full-time to his home in Los Angeles, speaks mostly through his essay writing about the foreign and stateside adventures of the Bush administration. In the past five years he has published one major nonfiction collection, The Last Empire, and a book about the founding fathers called Inventing a Nation: Washington, Adams, Jefferson. But mainly he has stayed busy producing what he calls his "political pamphlets," a series of short essay collections called Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: How We Got to Be So Hated (2002), Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta (2003), and Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia (2004). Last month at Duke University, he produced a short run of On the March to the Sea, an older play about the Civil War that he has rewritten entirely.

I spoke to Vidal, who will turn 80 this October, by phone from his home in Los Angeles on March 9.


City Pages: I'll start with the broadest of questions: Why are we in Iraq, and what are our prospects there at this point?

Gore Vidal: Well, let us say that the old American republic is well and truly dead. The institutions that we thought were eternal proved not to be. And that goes for the three departments of government, and it also goes for the Bill of Rights. So we're in uncharted territory. We're governed by public relations. Very little information gets to the people, thanks to the corruption and/or ineptitude of the media. Just look at this bankruptcy thing that went through--everybody in debt to credit cards, which is apparently 90 percent of the country, is in deep trouble. So the people are uninformed about what's being done in their name.

And that's really why we are in Iraq. Iraq is a symptom, not a cause. It's a symptom of the passion we have for oil, which is a declining resource in the world. Alternatives can be found, but they will not be found as long as there's one drop of oil or natural gas to be extracted from other nations, preferably by force by the current junta in charge of our affairs. Iraq will end with our defeat.


CP: You've observed many times in your writing that the United States has elections but has no politics. Could you talk about what you mean by that, and about how so many people have come to accept a purely spectatorial relationship to politics, more like fans (or non-fans) than citizens?

Gore Vidal: Well, you cannot have a political party that is not based upon a class interest. It has been part of the American propaganda machine that we have no class system. Yes, there are rich people; some are richer than others. But there is no class system. We're classless. You could be president tomorrow. So could Michael Jackson, or this one or that one. This isn't true. We have a very strong, very rigid class structure which goes back to the beginning of the country. I will not go into the details of that, but there it is. Whether it's good or bad is something else.

We have not had a political party since that, really, of the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt, who was a member of the highest class, an aristocrat who had made common cause with the people, who were in the midst of depression, not to mention the Dust Bowl, which had taken so many farms in the '30s. We were a country in deep trouble, and he represented those in deep trouble. He got together great majorities and was elected four times to the presidency. And launched us on empire--somewhat consciously, too. He saw to it that the European colonial empires would break up, and that we would inherit bits and pieces, which we have done.

If we don't have class interests officially, then therefore we have no political parties. What is the Republican Party? Well, it used to be the party of the small-town businessman, generally in the Middle West, generally sort of out of the mainstream. Very conservative. It now represents nothing but the gas and oil business. They own it. And the people who go to Congress are simply bought. They are lawyers who are paid to represent Halliburton, big oil, big banking. So the very rich corporate America has a party for itself, the Republican Party. The Democrats don't have much of anything but a kind of wistful style. They just want everyone to be happy, and politically correct at all times. Do not hurt other people's feelings. They spend so much time on political correctness that they haven't thought of what to do politically about anything. Like say "no" to these preemptive wars, which are against not only the whole world's take on war and peace, but against United States history.

This is something new under the sun--that a president, just because he feels like it, can declare war on anybody. And Congress will go along with him, and the courts will support him. The founding fathers would be mortified if they saw what had happened to their handiwork, which wasn't very great to begin with but is now done for. When you have preemptive wars, and you have ambitious companies like Bechtel who will build up what, let us say, General Electric has helped to destroy with its weaponry--these interests are well-represented.

There is no people's party, and you can't even use the word. "Liberal" has been demonized. A liberal is a commie who's also a pedophile. Being a communist and a pedophile, he's so busy that he hasn't got time to win an election and is odious to boot. So there is no Democratic Party. We hope that something might happen with the governor of Vermont, and maybe something will or maybe it won't. But we are totally censored, and the press just follows this. It observes what those in power want it to observe, and turns the other way when things get dark. Then, when it's too late sometimes, you get some very good reporting. But by then, somebody's playing taps.


CP: Has the media played a role in transforming citizens into spectators of this process?

Vidal: Well, they have been transformed, by design, by corporate America, aided by the media, which belongs to corporate America. They are no longer citizens. They are hardly voters. They are consumers, and they consume those things which are advertised on television. They are made to sound like happy consumers. Listen to TV advertising: This one says, "I had this terrible pain, but when I put on Kool-Aid, I found relief overnight. You must try it too." All we do is hear about little cures for little pains. Nothing important gets said. There used to be all those talk shows back in the '50s and '60s, when I was on television a great deal. People would talk about many important things, and you had some very good talkers. They're not allowed on now. Or they're set loose in the Fox Zoo, in which you have a number of people who pretend to be journalists but are really like animals. Each one has his own noise--there's the donkey who brays, there's the pig who squeals. Each one is a different animal in a zoo, making a characteristic noise. The result is chaos, which is what is intended. They don't want the people to know anything, and the people don't.


CP: You wrote at the end of a 2002 essay that so-called inalienable rights, once alienated, are often lost forever. Can you describe what's changed about America during the Bush years that represent permanent, or at least long-term, legacies that will survive Bush?

Vidal: Well, the Congress has ceded--which it cannot do--but it has ceded its power to declare war. That is written in the Constitution. It's the most important thing in the Constitution, ultimately. And having ceded that to the Executive Branch, he can declare war whenever he finds terrorism. Now, terrorism is a wonderful invention because it doesn't mean anything. It's an abstract noun. You can't have a war against an abstract noun; it's like having a war against dandruff. It's meaningless.

But you can terrify people. The art of government now, the art of control as practiced by the current junta, is: Keep the people frightened. It's exactly what Adolf Hitler and his gang did. Keep them frightened: The Russians are coming. The Poles are killing Germans who live within the borders of Poland. The Czechs are doing the same thing in the Sudetenland. These are evil people. We must go after them. We must save our kin.

Keep everybody frightened, tell them lies--and the bigger the lie, the more they'll believe it. There's nothing the average American now believes (because he's been told it 10,000 times a day) that is true. Now how do you undo so much disinformation? Well, you have to have truth squads at work 24 hours a day every day. And we don't have them.


CP: I'd like to ask you to sketch our political arc from Reagan down to Bush II. It seemed to me that Reagan took a big step down the road to Bush when he was so successful in selling the ideology of the market, the idea that whatever the interests of money and markets dictated was the proper and even the most patriotic course--which was hardly a new idea, but one that had never been embraced openly as a first principle of politics. Is that a fair assessment?

Vidal: He was small-town American Republican, even though he started life as a Democrat. He believed in the values of Main Street. Sinclair Lewis's novels are filled with Ronald Reagans, though Babbitt doesn't get to the White House. But this time Babbitt did. So it was very congenial for Reagan to play that part, not that he had a very clear idea of what his lines were all about. Those who were writing the scenarios certainly knew.

I'd say the downward skid certainly began with Reagan. I came across a comment recently, someone asking why we had gone into both Grenada and Panama, two absolutely nothing little countries who were no danger to us, minding their own business, and we go in and conquer them. Somebody said, well, we did it because we could. That's the attitude of our current rulers.

So they will be forever putting--what they do is put us all at risk. You and I and other civilians are going to be the ones who are killed when the Moslems get really angry and start suicide-bombing American cities because of things the Bush/Cheney junta has done to them. We will be the ones killed. Bush/Cheney will be safe in their bunkers, but we're going to get it. I would have thought that self-interest--since Americans are the most easily terrified people on earth, as recently demonstrated over and over again-- we would be afraid of what was going to befall us. But I think simultaneously we have no imagination, and certainly no sense of cause and effect. If we did have that, we might know that if you keep kicking somebody, he's going to kick you back. So there we stand, ignoring the first rule of physics, which is that there is no action without reaction.


CP: Didn't the previous successes of our economy and our empire, post WWII, condition people to expect that consequences were for other people in other places?

Vidal: Well, wishful thinking, perhaps. I spent three years in World War II, and it was a clear victory for our team. But it was nothing to write Mother about, I'll tell you. Walt Whitman once said, of the Civil War, that it is a lucky thing the people will never know what happened in the war. One can think of a lot of things, one can imagine a lot of things, but...

The sense that there are no consequences--that can happen if you keep the people diverted. Television changed everything. Some 60 or 80 percent of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was a partner of Osama bin Laden. They hated each other, and they had nothing to do with each other. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. But if you keep repeating it and repeating it--and Cheney still does; nobody's switched him off, so he just babbles and babbles like a broken toy--how are they to know otherwise? Yes, there are good journals here and there, like The Nation, but they're not easily found. And with our educational system, I don't think the average person can read with any great ease anything that requires thought and the ability to exercise cause-and-effect reasoning: If we do this to them, they will do that to us. We seem to have lost all track of that rather primitive notion that I think people all the way back to chimpanzees have known. But we don't.


CP: In your latest book, Imperial America, you refer to Confucius's admonition to "rectify the language." In that regard I'm wondering about the Clinton years, and about the success of the Clinton/Morris strategy of "triangulation," which mainly consisted of talking to the left and governing to the right. Did that play a role in setting the stage for a figure like Bush, who throws around words like "democracy" and "freedom" when they bear no relation to reality?

Vidal: Well, certainly it did. Clinton represented no opposition to this. He was so busy triangulating that he was enlisting under the colors of the other team, hoping to pick up some votes. I don't think he did, but he got himself reelected by not doing the job of an opposing political party. In other words, the Republican Party as it now is funded, is the party of corporate America, which is no friend to the people of America. Now that's a clear division. The people of America, if you ever run for office, you find out they're very shrewd about figuring out who's getting what money, and who's on their side. But you have to organize them. You have to tell them more things than they get to know from the general media.

Clinton just gave up. Also, to his credit, or rather, to explain him, the Republican Party realized that this was the most attractive politician since Franklin Roosevelt, and that he had a great, great hold over people. They also realized that if he got going, we really would have National Health--we would actually become a civilized country, which we are nowhere near. I mean, we're in the Stone Age again. He was working toward it, and they saw he had to be destroyed. Later they got a cock-sucking interlude to impeach him. If I were he, I would have called out the Army and sent Congress home.


CP: Really.

Vidal: Yes, really. They went beyond anything in the laws of impeachment. They have to do with the exercise of your powers as president, abuses of power as president. He wasn't abusing any powers. He was caught telling a little lie about sex, which you're not supposed to ask him about anyway, and he shouldn't have answered. So they use that: oh, perjury! Oh, it's terrible, a president who lies! Oh, God--how can we live any longer in Sodom and Gomorrah? You can play on the dumb-dumbs morning, noon, and night with stuff like that.


CP: Clearly Bush does represent something radical and new, and there's been an understandable tendency on the part of people who don't like where the country is going to focus their outrage exclusively on Bush and the Republicans. But don't the media and the Democrats come in for a great deal of blame for creating the political vacuum in which he rose?

Vidal: Well, the media is on the other side. The media belongs to the big money, and the big money, their candidates, their party, is the Republican Party as now constituted. So everybody is behaving typically [in media]. What isn't typical is a Democratic Party that has also sold out. There are just as many lobbyists and propagandists there as on the other side. They're never going to regain anything until they remember that they're supposed to represent the people at large, and not the very rich.

But they need the very rich in order to be able to run for office, to buy television time. I'd say if you really want to date the crash of the American system, the American republic, it was in the early '50s, when television suddenly emerged as the central fact of American life. That which was not televised did not exist. And any preacher, because religion is tax-free--I would tax all the religions, by the way--any evangelical who wants to get up there and say, send me millions of dollars and I will cure you of your dandruff, he gets to spend the money any way he likes, and there's no tax on it. So he can have political action groups, which he's not supposed to have but does have. So you have all that religious money, and then you have the enormous cost of campaigning, which means every politician who wants to buy TV time has got to sell his ass to somebody. And corporate America is ready to buy.


CP: Likewise, there's a great tendency among his detractors to call Bush stupid. You've called him "dumb," albeit not as dumb as his dad. But I'm recalling what you wrote about Ronald Reagan years ago in your review of the Ronnie Leamer book about him: that no one who's stupid aces every career test he faces. The same is clearly not true of George W. Bush, who had failed in a lot of things before he entered politics. But he hasn't failed in politics. Do you think Bush possesses a kind of intelligence akin to Reagan's in that regard, or is that giving him too much credit? How do you think his mind works?

Vidal: I should think very oddly. He's dyslexic, which means--it's a problem of incoherence. I have some dyslexia in my family, and they can be reasonably intelligent about most things, but they have problems with words, the structure of language. Not really getting it. There's an inability to study anything. Sometimes they also have an attention deficiency and so on.

I would say that he is undisturbed by these things. His is a mind totally lacking in culture of any kind. I'm not talking about highbrow culture, just knowledge of the American past, and our institutions. He's got rid of due process of law, which is what the United States is based upon. Once you can send somebody off and put them in the brig of a ship in Charleston Harbor and hold them as long as you like uncharged, you have destroyed the United States and its Constitution. He has done those things.


CP: How did so many Americans come to embrace and even celebrate these bullying, anti-democratic displays of authoritarian, censorial governance? There's a palpable sense of mean- spiritedness about a good deal of public sentiment, it seems.

Vidal: I wouldn't call it the public. There are groups that rather like it. And these are the same groups that don't like black people, gay people, Jews, or this or that. You always have that disaffected minority that you can play to. And it helps you in states with small populations. If you get eight of those states, you don't get much of a popular vote, but you can get the Electoral College--a device that our founders made to make sure we never had a democratic government. In other words, I don't blame the public. He's not popular. I've just been reading a report on Conyers's trip to Ohio with his subcommittee's experts. Ohio was stolen. The Republican Congress will never have a hearing on it. But I think attempts are being made to publish the details of what was done there, and elsewhere too in America.

In other words, I put the case that Bush was never elected--not in 2000, and not in 2004. This is a new game in the world. Through the magic of electronic voting, particularly through Mr. Diebold and friends, you can take a non-president and make him president. But how to keep the people, including the opposition who should know better, so silent, this introduces us to a vast landscape of corruption which I dare not enter.


CP: I saw a recent CIA report that referred to the United States as a "declining superpower." To your knowledge, has the government ever said so before?

Vidal: Well, their style is hortatory and alarmist. And I think they say we're declining every day and every minute. We must do this, we must overthrow this government, we must do that, stop China. Why not nuke China? [The American right] was all set to do that at one point, I remember. William F. Buckley Jr. was in favor of a unilateral strike at their nuclear capacity. A whole bunch of people, moderately respectable, were in favor of that. It all comes from propaganda. It all comes from knowing how to use the media to your own ends, and keep the people frightened.

It was very striking--before the inauguration, CNN showed a bunch of inaugural addresses starting with Roosevelt. Roosevelt was a master politician. What theme does he hit first? "We have nothing to fear but fear itself." Well, that's it. He intuited it, having followed the Nazis and knowing how Hitler was putting together his act, which was creating fear in the Germans of everybody else so he could mobilize them and make the SS. Roosevelt was saying that it was this unnameable fear that we had to watch out for. Then we skip over to Harry Truman, a real dunce, but there was a genius behind him in Dean Acheson. We jump over to him, and he is declaring war on communism, all over the world. They're on the march! Wherever you look, there they are, and we must be on our guard!

He instituted loyalty oaths for everybody--for janitors in high schools as well as members of the cabinet. Unthinkable, the distance from Roosevelt to his admittedly despised successor. We've gone from, we must not succumb to fear itself, to the next one saying, oh, there's so much to be afraid of! We must arm! We must militarize America and its economy, which he did.


CP: One theory about the reason the US invaded Iraq concerns currency--the fear that European deals for Iraqi oil might lead to oil's being denominated in euros rather than dollars. Do you think that notion holds any water?

Vidal: I do. Perhaps more oil than water, but yes, that's what it's about--the terror that Europe...Europe, after all, is more populous than the United States, better educated, better quality of life for most of its citizens. And it has actually achieved, here and there, a civilization, which we haven't. There's a lot of nasty response on the part of those Americans who are eager for more oil, more money, more this, more that, to put Europe down, to regard Europe as a rival and perhaps as an enemy. It was America that saw to it that we got a weak dollar, though. The Europeans had nothing to do with it. In fact they were rather appalled, because they own an awful lot of treasury bonds that will be worthless one day.

So yes, it was a power struggle. Ultimately the whole thing is about oil. We should be looking to hydrogen, or whatever is the latest replacement for fossil fuels. All the money we put into these wars in the Middle East, we should have put into that. Then we wouldn't be so desperate at the thought that in 2020, or in 2201 or whenever, there will be no more oil.


CP: Talk a little more about public education's decay in the current scene. Much of the Bush administration's spending on No Child Left Behind is earmarked for private corporate tutors.

Vidal: I don't think Bush himself is particularly relevant to any of this, since he avoided education entirely throughout his life. Which gives him a sort of purity. He was a cheerleader at Andover, where he learned many skills that have been very useful to him since.

The educational system was pretty good once. I never went to a public school, and the private schools here are generally good, though we are also better indoctrinated than the public schools. It certainly got bad around the '50s. Just as we became a global empire, the first thing I was struck by was that they stopped teaching geography in public schools. Now here we are a global power, and nobody knows where anything is. I loved geography when I was a kid. It's really the way to get to know the world. The success of Franklin Roosevelt was that he was a great philatelist. He collected stamps, and he knew where all the countries were and who lived in them. Now we have people who don't know where anything is. I remember a speech Bush gave in which he was reaching out not only to the "Torks" but the "Grecians" at some point. We live in total confusion time.

There is also something in the water--let us hope it was put there by the enemy--that has made Americans contemptuous of intelligence whenever they recognize it, which is not very often. And a hatred of learning, which you don't find in any other country. There is not one hamlet in Italy in which you can fail to find kids desperate to learn. Yes, there are areas where they might be desperate to become members of the Mafia, but that's because they don't have any money. And a country like Italy is not rich, not as rich as we are. But there isn't a kid in Italy who can't quote Dante. There's no one in America now who knows who Shakespeare is, because they stopped teaching him in high schools.

So we are out of it. And no attempt is being made to put us back into it.


CP: When does this current bout of foreign adventurism end? You've said in other interviews that it ends with us going broke. Can you explain?

Vidal: I haven't changed my line. We don't have the money for these adventures. We don't even have the money to operate those prisons which are the delight of Iraq. All we were doing at Abu Ghraib was export what we do to our own people in our own prisons, you know. We are sharing with the rest of the world penology-- in every sense. No, there isn't the money to do it. And the few who are making most of the money are probably investing it elsewhere, preparing islands for themselves to escape to. And then their followers, who are not very many, will be experiencing rapture. They won't be here.


CP: Is there any winning back some semblance of the older republic at this point?

Vidal: You have to have people who want it, and I can't find many people who do.


CP: What can average people do about this state of affairs at present, if anything?

Vidal: Well, some of the internet has been very useful. Radio has been very useful. There are means of getting things across. It's why I write those little books of mine, the pamphlets as I call them. Our first form of politics was pamphleteering in the 18th century. They serve a purpose--more pamphlets, more readers, more this, more that. There's a battle to do an interesting kind of guide to the American centuries, and how we got where we are and how we can get out of it. I'm engaged with some people working on that. Further, deponent sayeth not.

An interesting post, indeed, jeffmoskin, with a lot of food for thought in it!

I was in the U.S. Army in 1968, getting ready to be able to go and fulfill my role as "CHUM" in Viet Nam, or "cannon fodder", or a "bullet sponge", and so missed out on this particular HAPPENING above, and in fact, I was completely unaware of it even taking place, UNTIL NOW!

SO!

How about that for CULTURAL IGNORANCE on my part?

And all I can add is that now, today, up here in the State of New York anyway, thanks to a CONSERVATIVE Bush-appointed Judge, Buckley wouldn't even have to lift a finger against Vidal.

All he would have to do instead would be to wink, and the REPUBLICANS would have one of their PET DOCTORS issue an order to have Vidal locked up in a state-sponsored secure mental facility, or GULAG, as they are lovingly known by the huddled masses up here, and all would be well in Buckley's world, and that would be that!

SUA SPONTE: Of his, or its, own WILL OR MOTION, voluntarily, without prompting, or suggestion!

"THE GOVERNMENT DOES NO WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE GOVERMENT CAN DO WRONG, IS WRONG!"

"ANYONE WHO DARES TRY USE THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT TO SHOW THAT THE GOVERNMENT IS WRONG SHALL FIND THEMSELVES SUBJECT TO THE CENSURE OF THE COURTS OF THE GOVERNMENT, FOR IMPUGNING THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH CAN DO NO WRONG!"

Ahhh.

Yes.

I see!

I understand!

SUA SPONTE!

And getting back into the "BIGGER" picture of Life in OUR America, we have as follows, and no surprise, I think, anyway, as this position taken by the Pope in this matter of George W. Bush's unprovoked assault and invasion of Iraq was shared by a good chunk of humanity on the face of this earth, and rightly so!

Acts of tyranny and oppression by despots are still despised by freedom-loving human beings on this earth of OURS all these hundreds of years after the tyrannical and despotic English were kicked out of this country, and yet, the lesson still never seems to be learned, by the despots, that they are neither wanted, nor needed, in this world of OURS, that the Pope shared with us!

Politics - AFP

"US envoy says pope considered Iraq war 'defeat for humanity'"

1 hour, 51 minutes ago

LOS ANGELES (AFP) - The former US envoy to the Vatican, Jim Nicholson, recalled Pope John Paul II's vocal opposition to the US-led invasion of Iraq on the grounds that war represented a "defeat for humanity."

"There was a clear disagreement," Nicholson said of the rift between the Vatican and the White House over the use of military force to topple the regime of Saddam Hussein.

The pope, who died Saturday, "was a man of peace, and he always hoped for the peace option," Nicholson said in an interview with the Denver Post.

"If he could keep war from breaking out, there's always a chance that peace would break out," Nicholson said.

"That was his position about Iraq; he made that clear to me."

"He also said that war is a defeat for humanity, that war is not always inevitable."

In a failed attempt to sway President George W. Bush from a military strike, the pope had sent an emissary to Washington in the run-up to the war.

"The president had a great deal of respect for the pope, so he took it very seriously," Nicholson said in a separate interview with CNN.

Although differences emerged over Iraq, Nicholson said the pope had been "very supportive" of the US-led war on terror launched after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

During an audience with the pope just days after the attacks, Nicholson said the pontiff had offered his condolences to the American people and condemned the terrorist action as "an attack on humanity."

He also suggested that the pope and President Bush had forged a close bond, especially over their shared commitment to encouraging a "culture of life."

And turning to more immediate matters for us, as the Pope is now gone, and Iraq in fact, was invaded, despite whatever the Pope may have thought about it; what does this following story bode for OUR future, besides yet more lurid tales of yet more corporate scandal, here in the "ethically loosey-goosey" America of the ANTINOMIAN PRIME and the Fabulous Bush Co.'s, and yes, "BIG TOMMY", too:

Business - Reuters

"Fannie Mae Investigation Widens"

2 hours, 36 minutes ago

By Kristin Roberts

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Federal investigators probing accounting problems at Fannie Mae (NYSE:FNM) are now questioning how the No. 1 U.S. home finance company treated trusts that it set up to sell securities.

Shares of Fannie Mae tumbled more than 6 percent on the news, briefly dropping $3.28 to $49.96 on Monday before recovering to $50.80, off 4.5 percent in late morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

The stock had not been below $50 since August 2000.

Fannie's U.S. regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, said on Monday it was investigating the company's use of "qualifying special purpose entities" to account for trusts it uses to issue mortgage-backed securities.

That accounting issue is now just one of dozens being reviewed by investigators both outside and inside the company, according to sources close to Fannie Mae.

The magnitude of accounting problems at the company remains unclear.

But Fannie has already estimated that problems identified so far could result in a profit restatement of more than $11 billion.

Sources close to the various investigations of the company's accounting say the restatement may be much larger.

On Monday, Fannie's regulator said it was examining how the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored housing enterprise accounted for trusts as "qualifying special purpose entities" under Financial Accounting Standard (FAS) 140.

By treating them as "qualifying special purpose entities," Fannie kept the trusts' assets and liabilities off the corporate balance sheet.

OFHEO would not comment on what questions it is raising about Fannie's treatment of the trusts, saying only that it was looking at Fannie's employment of FAS 140.

"QSBEs are one of a number of issues OFHEO is looking at," said Corinne Russell, spokeswoman for OFHEO.

The trusts are used by Fannie Mae to issue mortgage-backed securities, which it creates by purchasing mortgages in the secondary market and then putting them into trusts for sale as mortgage-backed securities.

If regulators find Fannie should have accounted for those trusts on its balance sheet, it would substantially boost the amount of capital the company must hold, as its capital cushion is determined in part by the total assets on its books.

GROWING QUESTIONS

The investigation by OFHEO first focused on Fannie's compliance with two sets of accounting rules -- Financial Accounting Standards (FAS) No. 91 on accounting for fees and costs associated with originating or acquiring loans, and FAS 133 on accounting for derivatives and hedging activities.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December agreed with OFHEO, saying Fannie's accounting failed to comply with those standards.

But problems did not stop there.

In March, Fannie said its regulator had found more problems with the company's accounting and that questions have grown to include issues with at least five accounting standards.

The regulator also has found instances in which Fannie Mae employees falsified signatures on accounting ledgers and made changes to earnings-related records without following proper procedures.

end quotes

FANNIE MAE!

DOING "IT",

THE NEW AMERICAN "WAY"!

COOK, COOK, COOK, THOSE COMPANY BOOKS!


LOOT, LOOT, LOOT, THAT COMPANY RIGHT TO DEATH!

Go Fannie, yeah right, shake that thing!

CORPORATE AMERICA!

The home of liars, chiselers, looters, misbegottens .......

Let's see, have I missed anyone?

And borrowing some relevant portions from jeffmoskin's post above, in response to these two stories above here:

CP: I'd like to ask you to sketch our political arc from Reagan down to Bush II.

It seemed to me that Reagan took a big step down the road to Bush when he was so successful in selling the ideology of the market, the idea that whatever the interests of money and markets dictated was the proper and even the most patriotic course--which was hardly a new idea, but one that had never been embraced openly as a first principle of politics.

Is that a fair assessment?

Vidal: He was small-town American Republican, even though he started life as a Democrat.

He believed in the values of Main Street.

Sinclair Lewis's novels are filled with Ronald Reagans, though Babbitt doesn't get to the White House.

But this time Babbitt did.

So it was very congenial for Reagan to play that part, not that he had a very clear idea of what his lines were all about.

Those who were writing the scenarios certainly knew.

I'd say the downward skid certainly began with Reagan.

I came across a comment recently, someone asking why we had gone into both Grenada and Panama, two absolutely nothing little countries who were no danger to us, minding their own business, and we go in and conquer them.

Somebody said, well, we did it because we could.

That's the attitude of our current rulers.

So they will be forever putting--what they do is put us all at risk.

You and I and other civilians are going to be the ones who are killed when the Moslems get really angry and start suicide-bombing American cities because of things the Bush/Cheney junta has done to them.

We will be the ones killed.

Bush/Cheney will be safe in their bunkers, but we're going to get it.

I would have thought that self-interest--since Americans are the most easily terrified people on earth, as recently demonstrated over and over again-- we would be afraid of what was going to befall us.

But I think simultaneously we have no imagination, and certainly no sense of cause and effect.

If we did have that, we might know that if you keep kicking somebody, he's going to kick you back.

So there we stand, ignoring the first rule of physics, which is that there is no action without reaction.

CP: Didn't the previous successes of our economy and our empire, post WWII, condition people to expect that consequences were for other people in other places?

Vidal: Well, wishful thinking, perhaps.

I spent three years in World War II, and it was a clear victory for our team.

But it was nothing to write Mother about, I'll tell you.

Walt Whitman once said, of the Civil War, that it is a lucky thing the people will never know what happened in the war.

One can think of a lot of things, one can imagine a lot of things, but...

The sense that there are no consequences--that can happen if you keep the people diverted.

Television changed everything.

Some 60 or 80 percent of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was a partner of Osama bin Laden.

They hated each other, and they had nothing to do with each other.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11.

But if you keep repeating it and repeating it--and Cheney still does; nobody's switched him off, so he just babbles and babbles like a broken toy--how are they to know otherwise?

Yes, there are good journals here and there, like The Nation, but they're not easily found.

And with our educational system, I don't think the average person can read with any great ease anything that requires thought and the ability to exercise cause-and-effect reasoning:

If we do this to them, they will do that to us.

We seem to have lost all track of that rather primitive notion that I think people all the way back to chimpanzees have known.

But we don't.

Some years ago, when I was working on my Master's Degree in Engineering, I was working on a "project" that dealt with the "plumes" from nuclear generating station "cooling towers", which are quite huge affairs, as anyone who lives or travels across Pennsylvania can tell you, since that is one state where they are readily visible!

In the course of that project work, I became aware of "something" that in a sense "shocked" me, although engineers are not really supposed to get "shocked", and it greatly interested me, as well, because of the magnitude of what I was seeing through my project work, which was unpublished for reasons beyond my control, and that was the sheer volume of liquid water, and vapor, that just one of these towers alone could put way up into OUR earth's upper atmosphere, on a fairly continuous basis, where such water in such volume did not formerly exist!

"WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO ALL THAT WATER", is what I thought way back then, which would have been 1975!

Well, how about this?

"Floods swamp parts of Northeast - New Jersey hardest hit; New York, Pennsylvania also see trouble"

Waren Westura / AP

New Jersey's Ramapo River, seen here at Pompton Lakes, was among the rivers that burst their banks due to heavy rain over the weekend. The Ramapo burst over its spillway and onto an access road.

The Associated Press

Updated: 12:48 p.m. ET April 4, 2005

TRENTON, N.J. - Flooding forced hundreds of people from their homes Monday in New Jersey and Pennsylvania and closed the New Jersey Statehouse and several nearby state office buildings.

Flooding also closed schools and roads and chased hundreds of their homes in eastern New York state, where three people were missing.

And the same weekend storm system that drove rivers out of their banks with torrential rain piled more than 2 feet of snow on southwestern New York and northwestern Pennsylvania.

New Jersey’s acting Gov. Richard J. Codey declared a state of emergency.

Flood warnings were in effect for parts of northern New Jersey and eastern and central Pennsylvania as some streams were still rising.

Among the areas hardest hit by the flooding were Wayne, in northeastern New Jersey, where hundreds of residents were urged to leave their homes in low-lying areas, and Trenton, along the Delaware River, where some 2,100 evacuees might not be able to return home for several days.

“It’s fair to say that, in the best-case scenario, Wednesday night some houses may be available, but it’s probably going to be Thursday or Friday,” said Brian Hughes, Mercer County executive.

In northern New Jersey’s Lincoln Park, more than 400 people fled to drier ground, said Ellen Harrigan, the town’s emergency management coordinator.

The Passaic River was not expected to peak until Monday night, she said.

About 170 families were forced from their homes in Oakland by the rising Ramapo River, Bergen County spokesman Brian Hague said.

On the west bank of the Delaware River, residents and business owners in Easton, Pa., waded through waist-deep water Monday to assess the damage to their property.

Many streams in central and eastern Pennsylvania rose out of their banks, but communities along the Delaware got the worst of it.

Many locals said the damage was worse than what was caused by Hurricane Ivan in September.

“It was like someone was taking a squeegee and just pushing the water forward,” said Bertram King, 20, one of about 15 people evacuated from a homeless shelter in Easton.

800 evacuated

Farther upstream on the Delaware, about 800 people were evacuated from their homes Sunday in Port Jervis, N.Y.

At least 100 of them spent the night at Port Jervis High School.

And at Cincinnatus, N.Y., about 20 miles east of Cortland, the Otselic River flooded a nursing home, forcing out about 35 residents.

High water also closed roads and several schools in eastern New York’s Hudson Valley.

Police in Deposit, N.Y., near the Pennsylvania line, resumed a search Monday for two men whose van was swept away by a creek on Sunday.

To the southeast, in Ulster County, a 57-year-old woman was swept away by high water and remained missing Monday.

Farther west, the storm’s precipitation fell as snow.

Residents of southwest New York’s Chautauqua County were digging out Monday from as much as 26 inches of wet, heavy snow.

Several thousand utility customers lost electricity in the area south of Buffalo, N.Y., because the dense, sticky snow snapped power lines.

In nearby Erie County, Pa., 19 inches of snow fell at Waterford and Corry got 14.

Hundreds of motorists were stranded for hours Sunday on a 22-mile stretch of Interstate 90 between Erie and the New York line.

About 26,000 customers had no power Monday in Erie County and many weren’t expected to be back in service until Tuesday.

Parts of the area have had about 7 inches of rain in the last 30 days, with most of it since March 23, said David A. Robinson, the New Jersey state climatologist.

“In the last two weeks, we’ve had more than a month and a half of rainfall, with some snow melt in there,” he said.