The Daily Grist

FISH WRAP
Kerry's struggle with fishery policy illustrates his strengths and weaknessesThe Seattle Times wraps up its excellent week-long series on the presidential candidates' environmental stances with a story on John Kerry's long struggle with fishery policy in the senator's home state, Massachusetts. It's a revealing case study of the candidate's strengths and weaknesses. On the positive side, Kerry has worked for years, often outside the spotlight, to balance the needs of the state's struggling fisherfolk with the needs of the region's cod, haddock, and other groundfish stocks, which scientific studies have shown to be devastated by overfishing. In the process, he has demonstrated his willingness to dig into the details and do the hard, unglamorous work of crafting good policy. He has also revealed what's commonly perceived to be a weakness: An addiction to nuance and a seeming inability to craft concise, effective expressions of his positions, which leave him vulnerable to demagogues on every side of every issue. Read the whole series -- there's much food for thought for the politically engaged enviro.straight to the source:
The Seattle Times, Hal Bernton and Craig Welch, 30 Sep 2004

From AlterNet...

Father Kerry vs. Boy George
By Steven Rosenfeld and Jan Frel, AlterNet
The John Kerry that America saw on television Thursday night was not the John Kerry that the American people were told to expect by President George W. Bush.
In Kerry, they saw a man who knew himself, knew his values, and knew how, when, and where he would lead the nation in war and peace. Kerry wasn't shy about stating his agenda, defending it, and saying why it was an example of more mature leadership than that of the 43rd president. Most important of all, Kerry was adult enough to admit to the nation that he could change his mind when events called for it. And in doing so, he dominated the evening by setting the tone of the debate.
Bush, in contrast, presented himself as a resolute, unwavering leader, saying that that was what the nation needed to win – in Iraq and the greater war on terrorism. He held to his belief that he could do no wrong by always putting American interests first. "We would all rue the day if Saddam were still in power... believe me," Bush said, repeatedly adding that he exhausted all political and diplomatic remedies before going to war.
But Kerry showed that it just wasn't so. By citing Bush's record, Kerry demonstrated that Bush had diverted the country from tracking down Osama bin Laden, the real target in the war on terrorism. In fact, he said Bush "outsourced" the job of capturing or killing bin Laden to Afghani warlords who, only a week before, had stood with bin Laden.
Kerry started by saying that he can make the world safer. He knew about war, when to go to war, how to build alliances before war and wouldn't shrink from it if necessary. But he said Bush failed not only to follow his own words and path to war in Iraq, but the president was ignoring the truth of what was on the ground. "He went to Cincinnati and he gave a speech in which he said, 'We will plan carefully. We will proceed cautiously. We will not make war inevitable. We will go with our allies,'" Kerry said. "The terrorism czar, who has worked for every president since Ronald Reagan, said, 'Invading Iraq in response to 9/11 would be like Franklin Roosevelt invading Mexico in response to Pearl Harbor.'"
But the president did not respond to these assertions; instead he said Kerry changed his mind too often to lead a nation at war. "My opponent says 'Help is on the way,' but what kind of message does it say to our troops in harm's way, "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time?" Bush asked. "(That's) not a message a commander-in-chief gives, or this is "a great diversion."
Kerry spoke truth to power, while Bush said whatever the powerful said was true. A good example of this dynamic came during debate on how to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea. Bush said his solution was the only approach, six-party talks that his administration initiated after ending the Clinton administration's bi-lateral talks. Any other approach would fail, he said, because that would give North Korea what it wanted. But Kerry didn't buy that explanation, saying, here's the "real story."
"We had inspectors and television cameras in the nuclear reactor in North Korea," Kerry said. "Secretary (of Defense) Bill Perry negotiated that under President Clinton. And we knew where the fuel rods were. And we knew the limits on their nuclear power. Colin Powell, our secretary of state, announced one day that we were going to continue the dialog of working with the North Koreans. The president reversed it publicly while the president of South Korea was here. And the president of South Korea went back to South Korea bewildered and embarrassed because it went against his policy. And for two years, this administration didn't talk at all to North Korea.
"While they didn't talk at all, the fuel rods came out, the inspectors were kicked out, the television cameras were kicked out. And today, there are four to seven nuclear weapons in the hands of North Korea."
Kerry at least showed for the first time that Bush was in ownership of "the truth." And if proof is needed about who "owned the debate" or "won" it, look no further than the references that were made by the candidates regarding the United Nations.
Remember, Bush spent six months savaging the reputation of the U.N. before we went to war in Iraq, and the administration has since spent its time trying to pull down Secretary General Kofi Annan, and the authority of the Security Council. Kerry was having none of that. He spoke about the U.N. as a legitimate body to work with in our international engagements throughout the debate: "You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations." Kerry was so effective in creating a climate in the debate about the positive qualities of the U.N., that by the end, Bush, coerced by the dominant argument squirmed his way into defending the U.N.'s limited involvement in Iraq, almost wistfully hoping that it would have a vital role in Iraq's reconstruction: "Of course, the U.N. was invited in. And we support the U.N. efforts there. They pulled out after Sergio de Mello got killed. But they're now back in helping with elections."
One can only hope that the audience is smarter than the Bush campaign gives it credit for, because Bush used a caricature of Kerry's character flaws, without using firm examples from his Senate record. Bush instead chose to stick with the distortions he's spent millions on in his TV ads. Meanwhile, Kerry channeled Bush's record as evidence of repeated examples of bad judgement. For example, Kerry highlighted the fact that fewer Russian nuclear warheads and fissile material had been dismantled in the two years after 9/11 compared to the two years before it. Since both candidates agreed that was the greatest threat to the country, it can only mean that Bush has failed to address what he believes to be the most dangerous threat to America and the world - in a post-9/11 environment.
Kerry spoke repeatedly from his strengths, showing that he had been around longer than Bush, and that his military positions reflected the thoughts of America's decorated war heroes and former leaders, including Bush's own father: "I'm proud that important military figures who are supporting me in this race: former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili; just yesterday, General Eisenhower's son, General John Eisenhower, endorsed me; General Admiral William Crowe; General Tony McPeak, who ran the Air Force war so effectively for his father – all believe I would make a stronger commander-in-chief."
Kerry also referred to Bush's father in discussing the wisdom of invading Iraq: "Now I believe there's a better way to do this. You know, the president's father did not go into Iraq, into Baghdad, beyond Basra. And the reason he didn't is, he said – he wrote in his book – because there was no viable exit strategy. And he said our troops would be occupiers in a bitterly hostile land."
The candidates' mutual praise for each others' daughters was perhaps the most unscripted and revealing moment of the debate. Like his unwavering policy on Iraq, Bush revealed his inclinations to keep his daughters on a tight "leash." Kerry replied that he had learned "not to" rein them in, suggesting that a more flexible and understanding approach had brought about better results as a father. It was a microcosm of Bush's "Let's stay the course" vs. Kerry's "Let's learn what experience teaches us" approaches to leading the free world.
Let's hope that America noticed the differences.
© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.

The Daily Outrage...

By Ari Berman
The FBI has failed to translate more than 120,000 hours of counter-terrorism intercepts, according to a Justice Department summary released Monday. Despite adding three hundred translators, the FBI missed their deadline in thirty-six percent of cases. The quotes, "Tomorrow is zero hour," and "The match is about to begin," were intercepted on September 10, 2001, but not transcribed until days after the terrorist attack. In addition, a senior CIA official claims there are fewer case officers monitoring Osama bin Laden now than there were before 9/11. So much for winning the war on terror.
The right-wing House of Representatives voted Wednesday to repeal virtually all of Washington, D.C.'s gun laws. Isn't democracy great? The opinion of some gun-nut Congressman from Wyoming is more important than the District's mayor, law- enforcement chief, non-voting delegate and the majority of its citizens. This is taxation without representation, as proponents of DC statehood have long claimed about the District's second-tier status.
GOP blowhard, Democratic traitor, and spitball-satirist Zell Miller has been rewarded with pet pork projects for his fact-forgetting tirade against John Kerry in his keynote address at the Republican National Convention. On the first day of Congress' resumption, key GOP dealmaker Sen. Pete Domenici told Miller: "Don't worry about appropriations. I've already put that stuff in," The Hill reported.
Voter suppression watch part I. Thanks to Colorado Secretary of State Donetta Davidson, voters casting provisional ballots this November can vote only for president, not for candidates in statewide races. The announcement severely hurts Democrats locked in tight races, such as Senate candidate Ken Salazar, who receive the majority of lower-income provisional votes. Elsewhere, GOP election officials in Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota have proposed similar measures to limit turnout. Maybe Katherine Harris should consider a trademark.
Voter suppression watch part II. Tens of thousands of Americans living abroad may not get absentee ballots in time to vote, The New York Times reported Wednesday. Eight of fifteen swing states failed to mail absentee ballots by the September 19 cut-off date necessary to ensure that ballots are counted. Military members and their families can still obtain ballots online through the Pentagon. Fifty-eight percent of Americans owning passports - the best correlative to those living abroad - support Kerry. The armed forces generally support Bush.

MR. TALL vs. MR. SMALL
by Greg Palast
published by GregPalast.com
Our President told the debate audience, "You cannot lead if you send mexxed missiges." I certainly hope not. But that's exactly what we got. You watch our President, the nervous hand-hiding, the compulsive water-glass-fondling, the panicked I-wish-I-had-a-whiskey look, and you think, "My god, this is the guy who's supposed to save us from al Qaeda." And how are we going to win the War on Terror, Mr. President? "First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that," he said. Well, that's a start, I suppose. But it doesn't have to stay this way. This is America, home of the brave and where, I remember from school, we could vote for president and the votes would count. So we looked to the tall man next to him to show us the way out. In Iraq, "We don't have enough troops there," said the tall one. Really, Senator? We should send MORE? Not exactly: Mr. Tall's got a plan to get our troops out. He'll have a big meeting of "allies," and after he talks with them, they will all jump up and volunteer to send THEIR kids to Fallujah. France and Indonesia and Kuwait can't wait to ship in soldiers and extra body bags. Right. We love you, John, but there's no band of Hobbits coming to the rescue -- that's just a movie. Well, he looked kind of "presidential." But given the line-up includes Nixon, Ford and two Bushes, that's not a big trick. I'm sorry. I know I'm supposed to stand up and cheer that John Kerry didn't get Gored. In fact, if you look at presidential debates the way the media plays it, as something akin to Olympic figure skating, where you score for the competitor's style, you could say Kerry won. But I don't feel WE won anything. I mean, when Jim Lehrer asked how the candidates would make America safe from terrorists, Mr. Tall said he'd hire more firemen. And add more cops. Maybe he thought he was running for mayor. It was disappointing, but then Mr. Small's answer was downright frightening. We have to "stay on the offensive," and "stay on the offense," and "I repeat, stay on the offense." We have no doubt that Mr. Small can be extraordinarily offensive, but even he can't take his offensiveness to the bad guys if he doesn't know where they are. And on that point, he's clueless. There were two words I was hoping to hear from Mr. Tall: "Saudi" and "Arabia." Imagine if he laid it on the line, "The terrorists didn't put the hijackings on a credit card, Mr. President. Their Saudi sponsors are fattening on the bloated war-driven price of oil. But you can't touch your buck-buddies in the Gulf, can you, Mr. President?. As Commander-in-Chief, I'd cut'm off at the spigots, beginning with the release of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And then I'd seize their fat assets in the USA to compensate the victims of terror attacks." When Mr. Tall was asked what whoppers the President has told us, surely there was something a bit more memorable than Mr. Small's failing to win over allies for his whacky crusade. Here's what Mr. Tall said -- in my dreams: * "Beginning in March 2001, your Administration began a series of meetings with oil company executives to map the conquest of Iraq and its oil, a plan Americans would pay for in blood. You originally called this scheme, 'Operation Iraqi Liberation' -- O.I.L. We don't appreciate your little joke, Mr. Small." * "One month after seizing Baghdad you fired General Jay Garner, the man you put in charge of Iraq, after he called for rapid elections in Najaf; after he refused to impose your plans to sell off Iraq's oil fields. In Najaf, citizens denied ballots, turned to bullets. And then, as General Garner predicted, the seizure of Iraq's assets resulted in the type of war one expects -- when seeking to impose colonial control." * "Mr. Small, you claim we've given a thousand lives to bring democracy to the Mid-east. But so far, your democracy, Mr. Small, comes down to a puppet prime minister, we've installed in Iraq and a puppet government, the Saudis have installed in Washington." OK, I can't expect all that in a presidential debate, where the message has to fit through a tube. But still, Mr. Tall could have won my vote with two words. It's the two-word answer John Kerry gave three decades ago when asked the same question -- "How can we get our troops out of a disastrous war?" Then, the clear-minded, tall young men said, "In ships."

View Greg Palast's exclusive interview with General Jay Garner for BBC Television in the film, "Bush Family Fortunes," available this week on DVD in an updated edition from Ryko at http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39944000/rm/_39944105_iraq_palast19mar_vi.ram

It Appears That George W. Bush is Tired of Being President.
By John Nichols, The Nation
riness and frustration with the job was evident throughout last night's first presidential debate of the 2004 campaign. Whenever the discussion turned to questions about his management of the occupation of Iraq, Bush said, "It's hard work." Why didn't he anticipate the disaster? "It's hard work." Considering the mounting death toll, was the Iraq invasion worth it? "It's hard work."
By the end of the night, the sullen president had repeated the "hard work" line at least nine times, using it as frequently as he did those stock talking points about "progress" in Iraq and Democrat John Kerry's "mixed messages." And, in contrast to his rote recitation of the talking points, Bush's grumbling about how difficult it is to do his job did not seem at all insincere. At least on this point, Bush was speaking the truth. For George W. Bush, serving as president at this time in history is very hard work.
What was striking last night was the marked distinction between the world-weary performance of the president and the engaged presence of John Kerry. The Democratic challenger did not suggest that the challenges of cleaning up the mess in Iraq would be easily met. But his answers to questions about the quagmire suggested that he did not find the notion of tackling those challenges nearly so daunting as does the current occupant of the Oval Office.
The night should have belonged to Bush. National security is supposed to be the president's strong suit. Yet, Bush only arrived with 30 minutes of material for a 90 minute debate. And he had a very hard time stretching.
For the most part, it was Kerry who did the heavy lifting when it came to defining the issues. And, in so doing, he controlled the course of the debate.
Kerry was especially effective in arguing that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had diverted troops and resources from the fundamental fights of the war on terror. But the Democrat also made the failure of the president to build a genuine global coalition in support of the war more of an issue. And he was devastating when he suggested, after detailing the flaws in the administration's strategy, that the president's promise for the next four years was: "more of the same."
Kerry was weaker when it came to explaining what his "less of the same" would actually look like. But he trumped Bush on what should have been one of the president's strong points: homeland security. Kerry did this by laying something of a trap for Bush. The Democrat suggested that tax cuts for the wealthy should be rolled back to pay for homeland security initiatives such as securing bridges and tunnels, checking containers coming through US ports and assuring that all cargo on airplanes is inspected before it is loaded onto planes. "We didn't need the tax cut," Kerry said. "America needed to be safe." Bush's response was to grumble about how Kerry was going to pay for "all these promises."
From an issue standpoint, it was the most telling moment of the debate. Kerry was promising to keep America safe. Bush was promising to keep cutting taxes for the rich.
Bush should have seen that one coming. But to do that he would have had to be paying attention. As he slumped against the podium through much of the debate, however, the president seemed every bit as anxious as his father--when the elder Bush got caught checking his watch during a 1992 debate--to be done with this painful 90-minute political exercise. And he gave the impression of not being all that much more excited about the four-year political exercise to which reelection would doom him.
When Bush complained that the job of being president is "hard work," he was entirely believable. Yet, when Kerry bragged about how he'd "get the job done," he was equally believable--and a good deal more appealing.
*****************************************************************
John Nichols' book on Cheney, Dick: The Man Who Is President, has just been released by The New Press. Former White House counsel John Dean, the author of Worse Than Watergate, says, "This page-turner closes the case: Cheney is our de facto president." Arianna Huffington, the author of Fanatics and Fools, calls Dick, "The first full portrait of The Most Powerful Number Two in History, a scary and appalling picture. Cheney is revealed as the poster child for crony capitalism (think Halliburton's no bid, cost-plus Iraq contracts) and crony democracy (think Scalia and duck-hunting)."
Dick: The Man Who Is President is available from independent bookstores nationwide and at www.amazon.com

The Daily Mislead

BUSH MISLED NATION IN LAST DEBATES
As President Bush takes the stage tonight for the 2004 presidential debates, America will be reminded of all the promises Bush made - and subsequently broke - in his debate performances throughout 2000.In a 2000 debate, Bush said that "by far the vast majority [of my tax cuts] go to the bottom end of the economic ladder." According to the nonpartisan Citizens for Tax Justice, when his tax cuts are fully implemented in 2010, the top 5 percent of income earners will get more than half the tax cuts while the bottom half of Americans will receive less than 8 percent of the benefits.[1]In a 2000 debate, Bush said he believed gay marriage is a state issue.[2] Then in 2004, he proposed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.[3]In a 2000 debate, Bush promised not to overuse the military, saying "if we don't stop extending our troops all around the world and nation building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road, and I'm going to prevent that."[4] Now, because of Bush's actions in Iraq and efforts to cut soldiers' pay,[5] the military is facing recruitment gaps,[6] morale problems,[7] and troops who are stretched far too thin.[8]

Sources:
1. "Details on the Bush Tax Cuts so far," Citizens for Tax Justice, Fall 2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59934.
2. "Transcript of the South Carolina Republican Debate," CNN.com,
2/15/00,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59935.
3. "President Calls for Constitutional Amendment Protecting Marriage," The White House,
2/24/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59936.
4. "The First Presidential Election Debate," AustralianPolitics.com, 10/03/00,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59937.
5. "Troops in Iraq face pay cut Pentagon says tough duty bonuses are budget-buster," San Francisco Chronicle, 8/14/03, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59938.
6. "Numbers Challenge," ABCNews.com, 6/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59939.
7. "Troop morale in Iraq hits 'rock bottom'," Christian Science Monitor, 6/07/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59940.
8. "Is the Army stretched too thin?," NBC Nightly News, 3/09/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59941.

BUSH STILL PUSHING LIES IN REFUSING TO LOWER DRUG PRICES
President Bush continues to oppose allowing American seniors to purchase lower-priced, FDA-approved medicines from Canada.[1] His administration has claimed those prescription drugs would be unsafe, and is working to block a vote on bipartisan Senate legislation to make reimportation legal.[2] But as a new drug industry whistleblower notes, the scare tactics are dishonest and untrue.Dr. Peter Rost, vice-president of marketing for the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, recently came out and debunked the White House's argument, saying reimportation "has been proven to be safe in Europe" and that "The safety issue is a made-up story."[3] Rost's comments are consistent with the Bush administration's own FDA officials who have been unable to provide any evidence that medicines from Canada are unsafe.[4]President Bush's opposition to reimportation is backed by the drug industry - the same special interest that has donated lavishly to the GOP. According to the non-profit watchdog Public Campaign, the drug industry has given Republican candidates more than $36 million since 1999. President Bush has raked in more than $418,000 from the pharmaceutical industry, and lists many drug industry executives and lobbyists as his top fundraisers.
[5]Sources:
1. "Big Pharma fears a Kerry win will lead to curbs on drug prices," The Independent Portfolio
9/22/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59520.
2. "Frist won't bring drug import legislation up for vote," The Tennessean,
9/16/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59521.
3. "Surprise Support For Drug Importing," Washington
Post, 9/14/04,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59522.
4. "FDA lacks examples of Canadian drugs harming Americans," Knight Ridder,
11/26/03,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59523.
5. "Paybacks: Prescription Drugs," Public Campaign,
8/2004,http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2198579&l=59524.

Young Associates Back From Iraq Struggle With Memories, Question War
By Anne K. McMillan, Texas Lawyer
Nightmares haunt Jason N. Thelen four times a week. When he's awake, he struggles with memory and concentration problems.
Allen R. Vaught still deals with pain from where his back snapped in four places. He, too, battles memory problems.
Both men -- former Army captains who returned home recently from fighting in Iraq -- not only share symptoms, they share the cause: They nearly were killed while together on a mission.
Thelen, an Andrews Kurth litigation associate in Dallas, and Vaught, an associate with Irving's Franklin Cardwell & Jones, first met in Judge Advocate General's Corps training back in 1999, when supervisors assigned them to the same team and they discovered they both practiced in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. Over the next five years, their paths would cross again and again, from the day the Army assigned them to the same battalion bound for Baghdad to the morning bombs almost blew their Humvee off a road in Iraq.
Now the two young lawyers, both of whom took their military oaths years before taking their bar oaths, have become skeptical of the potential for success in Iraq.
In the long months they served in Iraq before the ambush, they dodged AK-47 fire, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades that came screaming out of minarets; endured endless days of 130-degree heat and months without showers; and drove Humvees through streets flooded with a foot-and-a-half of raw sewage. They say they waited in vain for Uncle Sam to provide radios so convoy vehicles could communicate; and they received body armor late — and then it was too small. The Army tasked them with teaching citizens of the former dictatorship about democracy, but many Iraqis just wanted them to leave. Their experiences left them deeply disillusioned about the possibility of successful societal transformation in the former dictatorship. "They [the Iraqis] will never be an American-style democracy," Thelen says.
Vaught adds, "I don't want another American to die for something that's probably not going to work."

The Wisdom of Chomsky...

THE RESORT TO FORCE
by Noam Chomsky
published by Tom Dispatch

As Colin Powell explained the National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002 to a hostile audience at the World Economic Forum, Washington has a ``sovereign right to use force to defend ourselves'' from nations that possess WMD and cooperate with terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq. The collapse of the pretexts is well known, but there has been insufficient attention to its most important consequence: the NSS was effectively revised to lower the bars to aggression. The need to establish ties to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it have the ``intent and ability'' to do so. Just about every country has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to overwhelming attack. Colin Powell carried the revision even a step further. The president was right to attack Iraq because Saddam not only had ``intent and capability'' but had ``actually used such horrible weapons against his enemies in Iran and against his own people''-- with continuing support from Powell and his associates, he failed to add, following the usual convention. Condoleezza Rice gave a similar version. With such reasoning as this, who is exempt from attack? Small wonder that, as one Reuters report put it, ``if Iraqis ever see Saddam Hussein in the dock, they want his former American allies shackled beside him.'' In the desperate flailing to contrive justifications as one pretext after another collapsed, the obvious reason for the invasion was conspicuously evaded by the administration and commentators: to establish the first secure military bases in a client state right at the heart of the world's major energy resources, understood since World War II to be a ``stupendous source of strategic power'' and expected to become even more important in the future. There should have been little surprise at revelations that the administration intended to attack Iraq before 9-11, and downgraded the ``war on terror'' in favor of this objective. In internal discussion, evasion is unnecessary. Long before they took office, the private club of reactionary statists had recognized that ``the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein.'' With all the vacillations of policy since the current incumbents first took office in 1981, one guiding principle remains stable: the Iraqi people must not rule Iraq. The 2002 National Security Strategy, and its implementation in Iraq, are widely regarded as a watershed in international affairs. ``The new approach is revolutionary,'' Henry Kissinger wrote, approving of the doctrine but with tactical reservations and a crucial qualification: it cannot be ``a universal principle available to every nation.'' The right of aggression is to be reserved for the US and perhaps its chosen clients. We must reject the most elementary of moral truisms, the principle of universality -- a stand usually concealed in professions of virtuous intent and tortured legalisms. Arthur Schlesinger agreed that the doctrine and implementation were ``revolutionary,'' but from a quite different standpoint. As the first bombs fell on Baghdad, he recalled FDR's words following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, ``a date which will live in infamy.'' Now it is Americans who live in infamy, he wrote, as their government adopts the policies of imperial Japan. He added that George Bush had converted a ``global wave of sympathy'' for the US into a ``global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism.'' A year later, ``discontent with America and its policies had intensified rather than diminished.'' Even in Britain support for the war had declined by a third. As predicted, the war increased the threat of terror. Middle East expert Fawaz Gerges found it ``simply unbelievable how the war has revived the appeal of a global jihadi Islam that was in real decline after 9-11.'' Recruitment for the Al Qaeda networks increased, while Iraq itself became a ``terrorist haven'' for the first time. Suicide attacks for the year 2003 reached the highest level in modern times; Iraq suffered its first since the thirteenth century. Substantial specialist opinion concluded that the war also led to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. As the anniversary of the invasion approached, New York's Grand Central Station was patrolled by police with submachine guns, a reaction to the March 11 Madrid train bombings that killed 200 people in Europe's worst terrorist crime. A few days later, the Spanish electorate voted out the government that had gone to war despite overwhelming popular opposition. Spaniards were condemned for appeasing terrorism by voting for withdrawing troops from Iraq in the absence of UN authorization -- that is, for taking a stand rather like that of 70 percent of Americans, who called for the UN to take the leading role in Iraq. Bush assured Americans that ``The world is safer today because, in Iraq, our coalition ended a regime that cultivated ties to terror while it built weapons of mass destruction.'' The president's handlers know that every word is false, but they also know that lies can become Truth, if repeated insistently enough. There is broad agreement among specialists on how to reduce the threat of terror --keeping here to the subcategory that is doctrinally acceptable, their terror against us -- and also on how to incite terrorist atrocities, which may become truly horrendous. The consensus is well articulated by Jason Burke in his study of the Al Qaeda phenomenon, the most detailed and informed investigation of this loose array of radical Islamists for whom bin Laden is hardly more than a symbol (a more dangerous one after he is killed, perhaps, becoming a martyr who inspires others to join his cause). The role of Washington's current incumbents, in their Reaganite phase, in creating the radical Islamist networks is well known. Less familiar is their tolerance of Pakistan's slide toward radical Islamist extremism and its development of nuclear weapons. As Burke reviews, Clinton's 1998 bombings of Sudan and Afghanistan created bin Laden as a symbol, forged close relations between him and the Taliban, and led to a sharp increase in support, recruitment, and financing for Al Qaeda, which until then was virtually unknown. The next major contribution to the growth of Al Qaeda and the prominence of bin Laden was Bush's bombing of Afghanistan following September 11, undertaken without credible pretext as later quietly conceded. As a result, bin Laden's message ``spread among tens of millions of people, particularly the young and angry, around the world,'' Burke writes, reviewing the increase in global terror and the creation of ``a whole new cadre of terrorists'' enlisted in what they see as a ``cosmic struggle between good and evil,'' a vision shared by bin Laden and Bush. As noted, the invasion of Iraq had the same effect. Citing many examples, Burke concludes that ``Every use of force is another small victory for bin Laden,'' who ``is winning,'' whether he lives or dies. Burke's assessment is widely shared by many analysts, including former heads of Israeli military intelligence and the General Security Services. There is also a broad consensus on what the proper reaction to terrorism should be. It is two-pronged: directed at the terrorists themselves and at the reservoir of potential support. The appropriate response to terrorist crimes is police work, which has been successful worldwide. More important is the broad constituency the terrorists -- who see themselves as a vanguard -- seek to mobilize, including many who hate and fear them but nevertheless see them as fighting for a just cause. We can help the vanguard mobilize this reservoir of support by violence, or can address the ``myriad grievances,'' many legitimate, that are ``the root causes of modern Islamic militancy.'' That can significantly reduce the threat of terror, and should be undertaken independently of this goal. Violence can succeed, as Americans know well from the conquest of the national territory. But at terrible cost. It can also provoke violence in response, and often does. Inciting terror is not the only illustration. Others are even more hazardous. In February 2004, Russia carried out its largest military exercises in two decades, prominently exhibiting advanced WMD. Russian generals and Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov announced that they were responding to Washington's plans ``to make nuclear weapons'.

Republicans in Ohio are scared.
New Democratic voter registrations are up 250% in Ohio. Democrats throughout the "Buckeye State" are prepared to turn out in record numbers to demand change on November 2nd in federal, state and local elections.
But first, Ohio Democrats need your help fighting the latest dirty tricks by the Ohio Secretary of State. With only 6 days left before the voter registration deadline, Secretary of State Ken Blackwell is trying to bar thousands of newly registered voters from the polls.
Stop him today and help protect democracy in Ohio.
Citing an arcane ruling requiring voter registration cards be printed on 80 pound paper stock, Blackwell is threatening to void registrations submitted on any other paper, demanding these registrants re-apply. But there is no time to reapply which could leave thousands of new voters off the rolls. Tens of thousands of Ohioans have registered online or with registration forms printed in newspapers, copied by friends, community activists, and even state offices. These are valid applications that must be processed immediately.
Blackwell is also trying to impose strict rules on provisional ballots. In 2000, nearly 23,000 provisional ballots were cast in Cuyahoga County alone (the greater Cleveland area). Due to congressional redistricting after the 2000 census and the swell of first-time voters, confusion on Election Day will run high. Provisional ballots must be made available in accordance with the federal Help America Vote Act.
Sign the petition to stop Ken Blackwell's latest dirty tricks.
In 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act granting every American citizen the right to vote. Blackwell himself has been quoted as saying "voting preserves the freedom that we Americans cherish."
Don't sit back and let Ken Blackwell take us back to the days of selective voting rights. Sign the petition today.
In June, we warned Blackwell that we were watching his close ties with Diebold, the leading manufacturer of flawed electronic voting machines. By July, with over 50,000 signatures on our petition, the use of these machines had been dramatically curtailed by local elections officials.
This time the stakes are even higher.
With your help, ACT has been on the ground fighting to register and mobilize voters throughout Ohio. As we race to the finish line the Republicans are running scared and resorting, yet again, to dirty tricks.
Don't let Ken Blackwell become the Katherine Harris of 2004. Join our fight in Ohio.
Sign the petition and pass it on to your friends today.
With great appreciation,
Steve BouchardState DirectorACT - Ohio
P.S. There are millions of Americans living abroad who must have their voices heard in 2004. Remind your friends and family abroad to register for their absentee ballots before the deadline passes.

HIGH SCHOOL POLITICS 101
by David Corn
published by TomPaine.com High School Politics 101
I am haunted by a conversation I had the night of the Super Tuesday primary contest. John Kerry had just sealed the deal; he would be the Democrats’ presidential nominee. And I was speaking with one of his most senior advisers. The general election, this consultant told me, would turn on how “mature” the media and the electorate would be. I now know what he meant, and I want to scream, “Grow up.” The Bush team has done a marvelous job of infantilizing the campaign. With Bush the Big Daddy you will be safe; with Kerry the Big Weenie, you are in peril. It’s that simple, and Bush and his lieutenants push simplicity as the ultimate virtue. They promote strength and steadfastness as the Olympian ideals—regardless of the ends to which these traits are applied—and deride thought, analysis and re-evaluation as evidence of impotence. They repeat untrue statements—Kerry has no plan for Iraq, Kerry wants to cut and run, Kerry flip-flops—the way a bully issues taunts. For them, this is a schoolyard election. Bush is virile, Kerry is weak. Case closed. But there’s more. Kerry is dangerous—so unable and unwilling to do what is necessary to defend this county that Al Qaeda is rooting for him. Kerry, the Bushies claim, just ain’t man enough. Talking about Bush’s message for the upcoming debates, his communications director, Nicolle Devenish, said of Kerry, “Someone who blinks when things get hard is not the right person to win the war on terror. They are preaching retreat and defeat in the face of real challenges from an enemy bent on our destruction. I think that’s bad for the troops, it’s bad for allies, and it’s bad for our country.” It is true that Kerry has displayed conflicted feelings about the war in Iraq and has, at times, expressed them inartfully. (If only he had voted against giving Bush that blank-check authority to launch an elective war.) But being conflicted about a war that has turned out to be far more problematic and far less justified than promised is not a bad thing. Yet Bush depicts his don’t-confuse-me-with-facts approach to foreign policy as an asset. This is a leader who—according to the White House—did not even bother to read the full 90-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq (as flawed as it was) before ordering an invasion of that country. But he sure knows how to cheerlead and how to pose as steely and determined. He also knows that most Americans, according to the polls, believe the war in Iraq was a mistake. And he has managed to turn this to his advantage, arguing, in essence, that he is so committed to defending the United States he is even willing to invade another country in error and, then, stay the course to get the job done and prevail. How’s that for strength? Kerry, if we believe the polls, is hanging in there, but the close poll numbers in New Jersey, Wisconsin, Washington, Minnesota and Maine are signs of trouble. And he is up against a candidate totally unencumbered by the truth. Bush and his lackeys have gotten away with murder—or, more accurately, character and policy assassination. In speeches and in ads, Bush claims Kerry’s health care plan is a government “takeover” of the medical system that would wrest control from patients and doctors. But this is utterly untrue. Kerry calls for tax credits for businesses that would allow them to purchase catastrophic health insurance for employees. But what cost does Bush pay for this fibbing? There was a small story on an inside page of The Washington Post reporting (in cool and measured tones) that Bush has mischaracterized Kerry’s proposal. Nothing on page one. The Swift Vets’ attack on Kerry, apparently, is more important than the president lying about an opponent’s position on a key concern for voters. In the meantime, Bush has scared more voters about Kerry. When not fear-mongering, Bush and the Gang push the flip-flop button. Every day, Bush derides Kerry for having voted for one version of the $87 billion spending bill that funded U.S. military operations in Iraq but then voting against the final version. (The measure Kerry supported would have forced Bush to actually pay for the war by suspending tax cuts for the wealthy.) What’s the point—or punchline—for Bush? He tells his crowds that Kerry, when once asked about these two votes, noted that the subject was “complicated.” Well, Bush says, his audience already laughing, there’s nothing “complicated” about supporting the troops. Yep, who wants a French-speaking, finger-in-the-wind, “complicated” know-it-all in charge of the uncomplicated fight against anti-American terrorists? When I recently debated The National Review’s Rich Lowry, he made fun of Kerry for being a “war hero who speaks French.” But why is such a person more ridiculous than, say, a non-war hero who used family connections to dodge the draft and who mangles English with a slight drawl? This really is ninth-grade-level stuff. Another Team Bush lie: Kerry, that effete, can’t-make-up-his-mind, 90-pound weakling, wants to retreat. And—as Coach said during gym class—nobody likes quitters, right? Now perhaps withdrawing from Iraq might be the wise policy move. But that is not Kerry’s position. For months, he has talked about his plan for Iraq. It entails internationalizing Bush’s mess and accelerating (that is, trying to accelerate) the pace of reconstruction and the training of Iraqi security forces. Kerry’s ideas may or may not work. It sort of will depend on how bad things get by next January. But it is false to say that Kerry has declared an intention to cut bait. In fact, he maintains that he wants to remain militarily engaged in Iraq in an effort to build an Iraq that is stable, not a threat to its neighbors, and not a haven for anti-American terrorists. Still, Bush mouthpieces and Bush-friendly pundits keep claiming Kerry has no plan and would have America turn tail. On her radio show this week, conservative commentator Linda Chavez assailed Kerry as a spineless fellow who would lead America to an ignominious retreat. And these talking points have been echoed throughout the media in the political equivalent of a classroom gossip campaign. What’s not a lie is that Bush does offer an uncomplicated—if free-from-reality—view of the war in Iraq and the misnamed war on terrorism: We’re going to beat the bad guys; we’re heroic Americans bringing democracy to the repressed; we’re making progress in Iraq; we’re fighting a tough fight but it’s for liberty and freedom, we must—and we will—triumph. This is an upbeat, optimistic, feel-good message. Kerry is a downer, for the truth does hurt: The president screwed up; he’s made the nation less safe; he doesn’t know what he’s doing in Iraq; he’s lying to you; Iraq is a mess. It’s clear that a majority of the electorate shares Kerry’s opinion that Bush botched things in Iraq and that the United States overall is heading in the wrong direction. But will voters validate Kerry’s stance by choosing the campus egghead with a truthful-but-upsetting message over the BMOC who swaggers as he peddles bumper sticker-sized happy talk and false assurances? What’s discouraging is that Bush and his lieutenants have been so successful in framing much of the election in juvenile terms. And the mainstream media has hardly been able to act as hallway monitor, let alone a school principal. In my darker moments, I’ve often said that human interaction doesn’t evolve all that much past high school. In this campaign, the Bush clique is doing all it can to prove this theory correct. But it is the rest of the kids—I mean, the voters—who will determine if the politics of derision, big lying, fear mongering, simplicity and immaturity will work.

From Progressive Trail

By Juan Cole
published by Informed Comment On the Virtues of a Changing Mind
It is depressing for me to see George W. Bush on the stump doing a stand-up comedy routine about John Kerry, parroting the predictable line that Kerry has had more than one opinion about Iraq. Serious news reporters who have gone back over the record find that Bush's charge is without merit, and that Kerry has been consistent on his Iraq position. The thing that most worries me is not when a politician's thinking evolves on a subject and he changes his mind. It is when a politician refuses even to consider changing his mind. Such inflexibility is almost always a sign of rigidity, which can be catastrophic in the most powerful man in the world. So Bush vowed not to retreat in Iraq. Bush has been refusing to retreat, or even to reconsider, for a long time now. At a news conference in the spring, Bush was asked if he had made any errors, and he replied that he could not think of any. Yesterday he said he did not regret his "mission accomplished" speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, in which he declared the Iraq war over. Bush keeps saying that there are 100,000 fully trained Iraqi security personnel, and seems to think that there are hundreds of UN election workers on the ground in Iraq. This kind of single-mindedness and refusal to even think about altering course reminds me of Lyndon Johnson in the Vietnam War. It is indisputable that the Iraq situation is Fouled Up Beyond Repair, or FUBAR. The number of daily attacks has gone above 80. The Green Zone where the government offices are is taking mortar fire. Little of the country is actually under control, and it goes further out of control at the drop of a hat. Amarah was in full rebellion against the British in late August, forcing them to fire 100,000 rounds of ammunition in a major battle of which most Americans remain completely unaware. The country is witnessing a guerrilla war that is vast in geographical reach, such that the guerrillas struck British troops and National Guardsmen in the far southern city of Basra on Tuesday. Americans have little appreciation of geography, and still less of foreign geography, but let's put it this way. The guerrillas were battling in Fallujah and Basra on the same day. They are over 300 miles apart. This is like being able to strike in both Youngstown, Ohio and Baltimore, Md. on the same day. The guerrilla resistance is not small, or localized, or confined to only 3 provinces. Many in the CIA have concluded that "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments." When you are deep in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging. Whatever Bush has been doing in Iraq for the past 18 months demonstrably has not worked. He desperately needs a change of mind on these policies. He needs to try something else. The image of him giggling about Kerry changing his mind on Iraq takes on a chilling aspect when you think of him as Captain Joseph Hazelwood of the Exxon Valdez. Hazelwood told the helsman to steer right and then went to bed. The helsman didn't steer far enough right, and plowed into the Bligh Reef and disaster. Part of the reason was that corporate cost cutting had left the ship without radar. If you think about it, in fact, a wrecked oil tanker is a good image of Bush administration Iraq policy. Bush should stop slapping his thigh and guffawing about that flipflopper Kerry and being to think seriously about changing his mind on some key policies himself. Otherwise, an Iraq as failed state could pose a supreme danger to the United States, the kind of danger that the Bligh Reef posed to the Exxon Valdez.

Labor Leader to Share Stage with PunkVoter.com's Anti-Flag and Tom Morello to Make Noise about the Nation's Health Care Crisis

CLEVELAND - September 28 - What do SEIU's Andy Stern and Punk Bands Have in Common? (Hint: Not their haircuts) -- They Are All Working to Rock Against Bush! -- Labor Leader to Share Stage with PunkVoter.com's Anti-Flag and Tom Morello to Make Noise about the Nation's Health Care Crisis.
In an effort to engage and mobilize and educate America's newest voters in key states, SEIU President Andy Stern joins up with PunkVoter.com's Rock Against Bush tour members tomorrow, Sept 29, to sound off about the nation's health care crisis with some of the loudest and most political in punk music, Anti-Flag and Tom Morello (Rage Against The Machine, Audioslave, The Nightwatchman).
WHAT: Labor Rally and Guest Performances
WHERE: SEIU Local 3, 1735 E. 23rd St. (at Payne) in Cleveland
WHEN: Wednesday Sept 29 at 5 p.m.
WHO: SEIU President Andy Stern, Anti-Flag and Tom Morello, Union members and Punks ready to Rock Against Bush.
President Bush's policies have led to over 2 million lost jobs, and during his presidency, 5.2 million more people have joined the ranks of the uninsured. SEIU and PunkVoter.com are spreading the message from picket line to mosh pit in an effort to put this country back on track so that every American, young and old, has a secure economic future.
"Whether you join a band or join a union -- it's all about fighting for your rights," said Stern. "This country needs affordable health care that we can count on."
"Young Americans can't find work and are suffering from some of the worst unemployment rates in three decades," said Anti-Flag member Justin Sane. Stern will join Anti-Flag and Tom Morello, along with other PunkVoter.com members at the Rock Against Bush concert Wednesday evening at Cleveland's Agora Theater.

From Blondie's Brain...and elsewhere

I just read in USA Today, online, that there is now an organized drive to pressure the removal of Dan Rather from the anchor slot at CBS news. The individual who is spearheading this effort is Doug Forrester, a self-made millionaire, and of course, a Republican who has set up a website, "danrathermustgo" dot whatever. Again, when it comes to the right wing, especially these neocons who profess to be God's soldier in the battle against the "evildoers", there are no ethical boundries...all bets are off...all's fair. But consider this, Mr. Forrester, self-made millio

The Daily Grist...

GO WEST, YOUNG POLLUTOCRAT!
Bush administration makes big push for oil and gas drilling in WestWith unprecedented speed, the Bush administration has opened vast swaths of environmentally sensitive land in the West to oil and gas drilling -- this by-now-familiar story is told comprehensively in articles in The Washington Post and The Seattle Times. The situation is summed up by Dave Alberswerth, former Clinton adviser and now a lobbyist for The Wilderness Society: "They haven't changed any statutes. They haven't changed any regulations. But they've changed a whole lot of practices and policies without any real public scrutiny." Bureau of Land Management employees are now rewarded for speeding through approval of leases for energy companies, which in many cases are writing land-use plans themselves. Opposition is spreading from environmentalists to traditionally conservative ranchers, hunters, and anglers. Bush administration officials deny that they're damaging wild areas, but they happily concede that the balance for "multiple-use" areas has been moved toward resource extraction.

straight to the source:
The Washington Post, Joby Warrick and Juliet Eilperin, 25 Sep 2004<http://www.grist.org/cgi-bin/forward.pl?forward_id=3182>
straight to the source: The Seattle Times, Craig Welch, 26 Sep 2004

George Soros, the billionaire investor and philanthropist, is beginning a nationwide tour this week to talk about how the war in Iraq is making America less safe -- and why President Bush should not be re-elected. This is the speech he delivered at the National Press Club in Washington on September 28.



A Personal Message from George Soros
Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush
Prepared text of speech delivered at the
National Press Club, Washington, DC, September 28, 2004
Download available at www.GeorgeSoros.com

This is the most important election of my lifetime. I have never been heavily involved in partisan politics but these are not normal times. President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests and undermining American values. That is why I am sending you this message. I have been demonized by the Bush campaign but I hope you will give me a hearing.

President Bush ran on the platform of a “humble” foreign policy in 2000. If we re-elect him now, we endorse the Bush doctrine of preemptive action and the invasion of Iraq, and we will have to live with the consequences. As I shall try to show, we are facing a vicious circle of escalating violence with no end in sight. But if we repudiate the Bush policies at the polls, we shall have a better chance to regain the respect and support of the world and to break the vicious circle.

I grew up in Hungary, lived through fascism and the Holocaust, and then had a foretaste of communism. I learned at an early age how important it is what kind of government prevails. I chose America as my home because I value freedom and democracy, civil liberties and an open society. When I had made more money than I needed for myself and my family, I set up a foundation to promote the values and principles of a free and open society. I started in South Africa in 1979 and established a foundation in my native country, Hungary, in 1984 when it was still under communist rule. China, Poland and the Soviet Union followed in 1987. After the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, I established foundations in practically all the countries of the former Soviet empire and later in other parts of the world and in the United States. These foundations today spend about 450 million dollars a year to promote democracy and open society around the world.

When George W. Bush was elected president, and particularly after September 11, I saw that the values and principles of open society needed to be defended at home. September 11 led to a suspension of the critical process so essential to a democracy – a full and fair discussion of the issues. President Bush silenced all criticism by calling it unpatriotic. When he said that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” I heard alarm bells ringing. I am afraid that he is leading us in a very dangerous direction. We are losing the values that have made America great.

The destruction of the twin towers of the World Trade Center was such a horrendous event that it required a strong response. But the President committed a fundamental error in thinking: the fact that the terrorists are manifestly evil does not make whatever counter-actions we take automatically good. What we do to combat terrorism may also be wrong. Recognizing that we may be wrong is the foundation of an open society. President Bush admits no doubt and does not base his decisions on a careful weighing of reality. For 18 months after 9/11 he managed to suppress all dissent. That is how he could lead the nation so far in the wrong direction.

President Bush inadvertently played right into the hands of bin Laden. The invasion of Afghanistan was justified: that was where bin Laden lived and al Qaeda had its training camps. The invasion of Iraq was not similarly justified. It was President Bush’s unintended gift to bin Laden.

War and occupation create innocent victims. We count the body bags of American soldiers; there have been more than 1000 in Iraq. The rest of the world also looks at the Iraqis who get killed daily. There have been 20 times more. Some were trying to kill our soldiers; far too many were totally innocent, including many women and children. Every innocent death helps the terrorists’ cause by stirring anger against America and bringing them potential recruits.

Immediately after 9/11 there was a spontaneous outpouring of sympathy for us worldwide. It has given way to an equally widespread resentment. There are many more people willing to risk their lives to kill Americans than there were on September 11 and our security, far from improving as President Bush claims, is deteriorating. I am afraid that we have entered a vicious circle of escalating violence where our fears and their rage feed on each other. It is not a process that is likely to end any time soon. If we re-elect President Bush we are telling the world that we approve his policies – and we shall be at war for a long time to come.

I realize that what I am saying is bound to be unpopular. We are in the grip of a collective misconception induced by the trauma of 9/11, and fostered by the Bush administration. No politician could say it and hope to get elected. That is why I feel obliged to speak out. There is a widespread belief that President Bush is making us safe. The opposite is true. President Bush failed to finish off bin Laden when he was cornered in Afghanistan because he was gearing up to attack Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq bred more people willing to risk their lives against Americans than we are able to kill – generating the vicious circle I am talking about.

President Bush likes to insist that the terrorists hate us for what we are – a freedom loving people – not what we do. Well, he is wrong on that. He also claims that the torture scenes at Abu Graib prison were the work of a few bad apples. He is wrong on that too. They were part of a system of dealing with detainees put in place by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and our troops in Iraq are paying the price.

How could President Bush convince people that he is good for our security, better than John Kerry? By building on the fears generated by the collapse of the twin towers and fostering a sense of danger. At a time of peril, people rally around the flag and President Bush has exploited this. His campaign is based on the assumption that people do not really care about the truth and they will believe practically anything if it is repeated often enough, particularly by a President at a time of war. There must be something wrong with us if we fall for it. For instance, some 40% of the people still believe that Saddam Hussein was connected with 9/11 - although it is now definitely established by the 9/11 Commission, set up by the President and chaired by a Republican, that there was no connection. I want to shout from the roof tops: “Wake up America. Don’t you realize that we are being misled?”

President Bush has used 9/11 to further his own agenda which has very little to do with fighting terrorism. There was an influential group within the Bush administration led by Vice President Dick Cheney that was itching to invade Iraq long before 9/11. The terrorist attack gave them their chance. If you need a tangible proof why President Bush does not deserve to be re-elected, consider Iraq.

The war in Iraq was misconceived from start to finish -- if it has a finish. It is a war of choice, not necessity, in spite of what President Bush says. The arms inspections and sanctions were working. In response to American pressure, the United Nations had finally agreed on a strong stand. As long as the inspectors were on the ground, Saddam Hussein could not possibly pose a threat to our security. We could have declared victory but President Bush insisted on going to war.

We went to war on false pretences. The real reasons for going into Iraq have not been revealed to this day. The weapons of mass destruction could not be found, and the connection with al Qaeda could not be established. President Bush then claimed that we went to war to liberate the people of Iraq. All my experience in fostering democracy and open society has taught me that democracy cannot be imposed by military means. And, Iraq would be the last place I would chose for an experiment in introducing democracy – as the current chaos demonstrates.

Of course, Saddam was a tyrant, and of course Iraqis – and the rest of the world – can rejoice to be rid of him. But Iraqis now hate the American occupation. We stood idly by while Baghdad was ransacked. As the occupying power, we had an obligation to maintain law and order, but we failed to live up to it. If we had cared about the people of Iraq we should have had more troops available for the occupation than we needed for the invasion. We should have provided protection not only for the oil ministry but also the other ministries, museums and hospitals. Baghdad and the country’s other cities were destroyed after we occupied them. When we encountered resistance, we employed methods that alienated and humiliated the population. The way we invaded homes, and the way we treated prisoners generated resentment and rage. Public opinion condemns us worldwide.

The number of flipflops and missteps committed by the Bush administration in Iraq far exceeds anything John Kerry can be accused of. First we dissolved the Iraqi army, then we tried to reconstitute it. First we tried to eliminate the Baathists, then we turned to them for help. First we installed General Jay Garner to run the country, then we gave it to Paul Bremer and when the insurgency became intractable, we installed an Iraqi government. The man we chose was a protégé of the CIA with the reputation of a strong man – a far cry from democracy. First we attacked Falluja over the objections of the Marine commander on the ground, then pulled them out when the assault was half-way through, again over his objections. “Once you commit, you got to stay committed,” he said publicly. More recently, we started bombing Falluja again.

The Bush campaign is trying to put a favorable spin on it, but the situation in Iraq is dire. Much of the Western part of the country has been ceded to the insurgents. Even the so-called Green Zone (a small enclave in the center of Baghdad where Americans live and work) is subject to mortar attacks. The prospects of holding free and fair elections in January are fast receding and civil war looms. President Bush received a somber intelligence evaluation in July but he has kept it under wraps and failed to level with the electorate.

Bush’s war in Iraq has done untold damage to the United States. It has impaired our military power and undermined the morale of our armed forces. Before the invasion of Iraq, we could project overwhelming power in any part of the world. We cannot do so any more because we are bogged down in Iraq. Afghanistan is slipping from our control. North Korea, Iran, Pakistan and other countries are pursuing nuclear programs with renewed vigor and many other problems remain unattended.

By invading Iraq without a second UN resolution, we violated international law. By mistreating and even torturing prisoners, we violated the Geneva conventions. President Bush has boasted that we do not need a permission slip from the international community, but our actions have endangered our security – particularly the security of our troops.

Our troops were trained to project overwhelming power. They were not trained for occupation duties. Having to fight an insurgency saps their morale. Many of our troops return from Iraq with severe trauma and other psychological disorders. Sadly, many are also physically injured. After Iraq, it will be difficult to recruit people for the armed forces and we may have to resort to conscription.

There are many other policies for which the Bush administration can be criticized but none are as important as Iraq. Iraq has cost us nearly 200 billion dollars -- an enormous sum. It could have been used much better elsewhere. The costs are going to mount because it was much easier to get into Iraq than it will be to get out of there. President Bush has been taunting John Kerry to explain how he would do things differently in Iraq. John Kerry has responded that he would have done everything differently and he would be in a better position to extricate us than the man who got us in there. But it won’t be easy for him either, because we are caught in a quagmire.

It is a quagmire that many predicted. I predicted it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy. I was not alone: top military and diplomatic experts desperately warned the President not to invade Iraq. But he ignored their experienced advice. He suppressed the critical process. The discussion about Iraq remains stilted even during this presidential campaign because of the notion that any criticism of our Commander-in-Chief puts our troops at risk. But this is Bush’s war, and he ought to be held responsible for it. It’s the wrong war, fought the wrong way. Step back for a moment from the cacophony of the election campaign and reflect: who got us into this mess? In spite of his Texas swagger, George W. Bush does not qualify to serve as our Commander-in-Chief.

There is a lot more to be said on the subject and I have said it in my book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, now available in paperback. I hope you will read it. You can download the chapter on the Iraqi quagmire free from www.georgesoros.com

If you find my arguments worth considering, please share this message with your friends.

I would welcome your comments at ……………… . I am eager to engage in a critical discussion because the stakes are so high.

just like sheep...
Blondie

PELOSI DERAILS CIA PLAN TO BUY IRAQ ELECTIONS
by Juan Cole
published by Informed Comment
Time Magazine reports that the Bush administration had had a plan to use the Central Intelligence Agency to funnel money to candidates it favored in the forthcoming Iraqi elections. The rationale given was that Iran was bankrolling its own candidates. This plan was apparently derailed in part by the intervention of Democratic Minority Leader in the House, Nancy Pelosi, who remonstrated with National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice about it. I'd like to make three comments on this story. The first is to point out that this sort of behavior by the Bush administration fatally undermines the ideal of democracy in the Middle East. If Muslims think that "democracy" is a stalking horse for CIA control of their country, then they will flee the system and prefer independent-minded strongmen that denounce the US. The constitutional monarchies established in the Middle East by the British were similarly undermined in the popular imagination by the impression they gave of being mere British puppets. This was true of the Wafd Party in Egypt in the 1940s and early 1950s, which the Free Officers overthrew in 1952 in the name of national indepencence. It was also true in Iraq, where in 1958 popular mobs dragged the corpse of the pro-British Prime Minister Nuri al-Said through the streets and finished off the British-installed monarchy. Second, I found the Time magazine diction about Pelosi sexist. The article described her as having "come unglued" on hearing of the plan. "Coming unglued" is the wrong image here. She didn't go hysterical and fall apart. If you were going to be glib, you could have described her as "livid" or "going ballistic." But such journalistic buzzwords for alarm and anger are reserved for men (no doubt the phallic connotations of intercontinental ballistic missiles help gender the image). Pelosi did not become "unglued." Rather, she intervened forcefully and effectively. She appears to have mobilized a bipartisan "powerful women" network with Rice, whom she strong-armed (another simile not usually used of women). Of course, she also was in a position to mobilize the Democrats in Congress across gender boundaries. The ultimate Congressional check on presidential abuse is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is the Leak to the Press, with Time cooperating. Although the story suggests that the battle was fought and won by Pelosi months ago, in fact the leak at this point in time is designed to forestall the Bush administration from reverting to plan A if it wins the November election. The other corner of the story is Iran. The scheme to influence the elections is justified with reference to Iranian funding of candidates. But is this charge plausible? The pre-picked slates of candidates for the January elections will run on a handful of party tickets-- including the 2 Kurdish ones, Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, Allawi's Iraqi National Accord, the Shiite al-Da`wa and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. I don't know for whom the Sunni Arabs are supposed to vote if these are the choices. So to whom might Iran give money? It has a tight alliance with Jalal Talabani, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. But then so does the US, and has had for two decades. Iran might give money to the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was based in Tehran for over 20 years. But SCIRI has complained bitterly in recent months that Iran's Arabic-language satellite television channel declined to criticize Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army for their thuggish behavior in Najaf. Iran and SCIRI no longer seem on very good terms. In 2003, the Iranian hardliners had warned the al-Hakim family that leads SCIRI not to ally with the Americans in overthrowing Saddam. It was Rumsfeld who negotiated with SCIRI and brought them to Iraq and gave them a seat on the Interim Governing Council, and then gave them the Finance Ministry in the current caretaker government. This is a party that the CIA needs to counteract? The Bush Administration practically installed it in Iraq! The Iranians might give money to al-Da`wa, another Shiite party. But al-Da`wa cooperated with the US invasion and rule of Iraq, and members or ex-members were given several seats on the Interim Governing Council. Iraqi Vice President Ibrahim Jaafari is a leader of al-Da`wa. He was appointed by the UN in consultation with the United States. So, now, the US has to give money to other people to keep Jaafari out of office? What sense does that make? Nor is the London branch of al-Da`wa, from which Jaafari comes, very close to the hardliners in Iran. It is more lay than clerical, and rejects the Khomeinist theory of clerical rule. As for the Iraqi National Congress, Rumsfeld practically turned Iraq over to it in summer of 2003, and would have completely done so if Colin Powell and Tony Blair hadn't stopped him. So now CIA black money has to be used to block it because of its ties to Tehran--ties that Rumsfeld knew all about all along? I confess to not being able to understand the US-inspired scheme for the elections, with a limited number of party slates, or how independent candidates could run in such a system. It appears to me that the Sadrists are effectively excluded under this system (which may suit them-- see below). If this exclusion is already built into the system, then Iran could hardly change anything by giving the Sadrists money. The evidence is that anyway to top leaders of Iran are nervous about Muqtada al-Sadr being a loose cannon, and it is not at all sure that they would fund him even if he were running, which he is not. He complains bitterly about Iranian influence on Iraqi Shiism, for his part. So, the "cover story" of forestalling "Iranian influence" doesn't hold water. Bush just wanted to buy himself an election, in the Bush tradition. (Bush's grandfather Prescott, a US senator, probably made much of the pile on which he ran by investing in Nazi companies). Pelosi did not come unglued. It was this tawdry plot against democracy, which undermines the very ideal of it in the region, that came unglued.

HOPE FOR THE HOMESTRETCH
by Paul Rogat Loeb
published by TomPaine.com
In an election likely to be decided as much by voter turnout as by convincing the remaining undecided, how do we maintain the hope that's necessary to keep making the phone calls, knocking on the doors, funding the key ads and doing all the other critical tasks to get Bush out of office? Even those of us working hard for change hit walls of doubt and uncertainty about whether our actions really matter. Our spirits rise and fall as if on a roller coaster with each shift in the polls. In a time when lies too often seem to prevail, we wonder whether it's worthwhile to keep making the effort. We need to remind ourselves that we never can predict all the results of our actions. A few years ago, I met a Wesleyan University student who, with a few friends, registered nearly three hundred fellow students concerned about environmental threats and cuts in government financial aid programs. The Congressman they supported won by 21 votes. Before they began, the student and her friends feared that their modest efforts would be irrelevant. Even when our actions seem futile, we never really know their full influence. Last year, when millions of us rose up against the Iraq war, many felt like their efforts made no difference. We forced a debate, but couldn't avert the war. Yet our actions have played out in unexpected ways—as courageous actions often do, even when they seem like immediate failures. And their fruits may well make the difference in November. If John Kerry wins, despite his own limitations, and defeats what's probably the most dangerous administration in America's history, he'll have the peace movement to thank. During the initial flush of "Mission Accomplished" "victory," those of us who challenged the war were branded as whiners, even enemies of the troops. Bush seemed virtually unbeatable. Media pundits cheered his every move. Democrats scuttled for cover like whipped dogs. Those of us who dared to raise a contrary word felt isolated and alone, and our actions easily seemed futile. The Bush administration continues to brand protestors present and past as disloyal. But as the occupation has unraveled, the arguments of our once-isolated voices have reached more receptive ears. Had there been no significant opposition, Bush would now have a far easier time rationalizing the war as a risk the entire country had embraced. Who could blame him that it hasn't quite worked out? Instead, our warnings (about missing weapons of mass destruction, sundered ties with allies and resistance and resentment from the Iraqi population), seem increasingly prophetic. The Iraqi war has now become a prime Republican liability. We can thank our movement for helping to highlight these key issues, even as John Kerry needlessly distances himself from our voices. We also significantly broadened the base of those willing to actively challenge Bush's regime. Citizens who first came in to political participation through this movement, or returned after years, then shifted to efforts like the Howard Dean campaign. They're now registering voters, reaching out to the undecided, and doing all the critical tasks that give John Kerry his best possible chance to win. What is it that enables people to take difficult stands despite all the pressures to stay silent? What will allow us to keep on? Those who persist in the critical work of change recognize that history turns in unexpected ways, and that courage is contagious. They create engaged communities, because few can act alone. They recognize that action forges new possibilities, a process Reverend Jim Wallis describes as "believing in spite of the evidence—then watching the evidence change." Think of heroes of the past who persevered through bleak times and helped end unjust regimes: Rosa Parks and Václav Havel did it by maintaining hope, precisely when success seemed most elusive. We think, because we've been told, that one day Parks stepped onto a bus in Montgomery, Ala. and single-handedly inaugurated the Civil Rights movement by refusing to move to the back of the bus. "Rosa Parks wasn't an activist," Garrison Keillor said a couple years ago, well-meaningly. "She was just a woman with her groceries who was tired." But by that time, Parks been a civil rights activist for 12 years, was the secretary of the local NAACP chapter, and acted not alone but in concert with others. The summer before her arrest, she'd taken a 10-day workshop at the Tennessee labor and civil rights center, Highlander School, which is still going strong. Only because she and others persisted was she able to visibly make history that day on the bus. Even in a seemingly losing cause, one person may unknowingly inspire another, and that person yet a third, who go on to change the world, or at least a small corner of it. Rosa Parks's husband Raymond convinced her to attend her first NAACP meeting, on lynching. But who got Raymond Parks involved? The links in any chain of influence are too complex to trace. But hope blooms when we realize that only by acting with courage and faith can we create these links of possibility. Think of how people learned to act in a seemingly even more hopeless situation. In the 1970s, future Czech president Václav Havel became involved after the authorities first outlawed and then arrested the rock band Plastic People of the Universe, claiming their Frank Zappa-influenced music was "morbid" and had a "negative social impact." Havel helped organize a defense committee that evolved into the Charter 77 organization, which in turn set the stage for Czechoslovakia's broader democracy movement. The Czech dissenters didn't instantly succeed. When we stand up for our deepest beliefs, we don't always see immediate results. But if we do our work well, our efforts will both address immediate challenges, like our immensely critical election, and also build engaged community for the long haul. We never know when our seemingly small action will make all the difference in a critical campaign. Or when someone we help take their first difficult stand will play a key role in advancing human dignity down the line. In Havel's case, critics mocked the early human rights initiatives that he and others launched, particularly a petition to free jailed dissidents. They belittled those who circulated the petitions as "exhibitionistic," dismissing their motives as an attempt "to draw attention to themselves." Dissenters everywhere receive similar treatment. Havel's group didn't free a single political prisoner—just as our protests last year didn't stop the war. But both immediately apparent "failures" were more significantly worthwhile. The imprisoned Czech dissidents said the mere fact that others had taken up their cause sustained them in prison. And the movement built by once seemingly hopeless actions eventually toppled a dictatorial regime. As Havel wrote, three years before the dictatorship fell, "Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart." We need the courage to persist between now and the November election—and beyond. Too many people hold back from volunteering or even voting, because they feel politics is out of their control. We need to remind ourselves—and others—that history isn't some inevitable pendulum. It's contingent on the hope that enables us to act.