Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 141             Today’s News and Views         Thursday, May 18, 2006

Donle's Daily Dispatches RSS News Feeds

Latest news and opinion headlines from NPR, BBC, NY Times, etc.

See the cost in your community

Update of US Casualties in Iraq: 2450

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 295

Figures provided by the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Listen to Air America Radio while reading today's news and views

Today's News and Views

Iraq War Images Uncensored

Department of Defense Responds to Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act Request and Related Lawsuit

(Washington, DC) Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that Department of Defense released a videotape to Judicial Watch at 1:00 p.m. this afternoon that shows American Airlines Flight 77 striking the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. The Department of Defense released the videotape in response to a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act request and related lawsuit.

"This is in response to your December 14, 2004 Freedom of Information Act Request, FOIA appeal of March 27, 2005, and complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia," wrote William Kammer, Chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information. "Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video."

Judicial Watch originally filed a Freedom of Information Act request on December 15, 2004, seeking all records pertaining to September 11, 2001 camera recordings of the Pentagon attack from the Sheraton National Hotel, the Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, Pentagon security cameras and the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Department of Defense admitted in a January 26, 2005 letter that it possessed a videotape responsive to Judicial Watch's request. However, the Pentagon refused to release the videotape because it was, "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui." Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on February 22, 2006 arguing that there was "no legal basis" for the Defense Department's refusal to release the tape.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77. As always, our prayers remain with all those who suffered as a result of those murderous attacks."

A copy of the video is available on Judicial Watch's Internet site, www.judicialwatch.org.

Judicial Watch a non-partisan, educational foundation organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. Judicial Watch is dedicated to fighting government and judicial corruption and promoting a return to ethics and morality in our nation's public life.

May 18, 2006

G.O.P. Conservatives Topple Veteran State Lawmakers in Pennsylvania

By JASON DePARLE

WASHINGTON, May 17 — A revolt among Pennsylvania conservatives gained national attention on Wednesday after challengers toppled at least 12 state lawmakers they deemed insufficiently committed to small government and fiscal restraint.

Among those losing their positions in a Republican primary on Tuesday were the two State Senate leaders, Robert C. Jubelirer and David J. Brightbill, who had 56 years of incumbency between them and vastly outspent their upstart rivals.

Facing a tire salesman with little political experience, Mr. Brightbill, the majority leader, outspent his opponent nearly 20 to 1 and still captured just 37 percent of the vote.

"My campaign has always been about making Republicans Republican again," the winner, Mike Folmer of Lebanon, said. "Republicans have controlled the Legislature here since 1995, but the size, the scope and even the ineffectiveness of our government has continued to grow."

The results drew cheers from conservatives nationally, many of whom voice similar criticisms of Republican incumbents in Washington and have threatened their own revolts.

The Fiscal Restraint Coalition, a network of organizations calling for smaller government, sent out an e-mail message saying the election showed "that the fiscal restraint message is a winner."

Captain's Quarters, a conservative blog, said the election would "serve notice on the G.O.P. that it cannot take conservative votes for granted."

But others, while celebrating the results, saw danger for the party.

"It shows a very worrisome, elevated level of anger and frustration on the part of Republicans," said Pat Toomey, president of the Club for Growth, which supports low taxes and small government. "In a primary, they can vent that by voting for challengers. The problem is, in a general election they stay home. It's a very worrisome sign for Republicans in Washington."

In Pennsylvania, the incumbents' fall was extraordinary. No Senate leader had lost a primary challenge since 1964.

"And we took out two last night," said Matthew J. Brouillette, president of the Commonwealth Foundation, a conservative group in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania conservatives had long accused the Republican leaders of the Legislature of being too quick to go along with Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat. In two of the last three state budgets, Mr. Brouillette said, the Legislature approved more spending than Mr. Rendell had requested.

The smoldering anger among Pennsylvania conservatives caught fire last summer when the Republican-controlled Legislature approved pay increases of up to 54 percent for elected officials in all three branches of government.

"That was the Alamo," Mr. Folmer said. After an outpouring of criticism, the lawmakers rescinded the increase, but they could not rescind the anger.

In some races, the groundwork for a primary challenge had been laid. John Eichelberger, who defeated Mr. Jubelirer, the Senate president pro tempore, had been contemplating the race even before the increase in pay.

In doing so, Mr. Eichelberger said, he had the support of several wealthy Pennsylvanians, including Bob Guzzardi, a member of the Club for Growth who commissioned a poll of the district in the Altoona region by Kellyanne Conway, a pollster here.

After entering the race, Mr. Eichelberger received an endorsement from Mr. Toomey, who also helped him raise money. Mr. Toomey, a former congressman, is prominent among Pennsylvania conservatives for having nearly beat a moderate Republican, Arlen Specter, in a United States Senate primary in 2004.

Mr. Eichelberger, along with three other conservative challengers, created a campaign document, "Promise to Pennsylvania," modeled after the "Contract With America" that the Republicans used in 1994 to capture Congress.

It called for stricter regulation of lobbyists, term limits, tort reform and the vote of three-fifths of the Legislature before raising taxes. Three of the four signers won. The fourth is clinging to a narrow lead.

"People are just tired of Republicans who don't represent the bedrock conservative values of the party," Mr. Eichelberger said. "They're Republican in name only. If you're going to be a Republican, be a Republican."

Mr. Eichelberger noted that Mr. Jubelirer raised $1.3 million and had the support of the state's Republican Party.

Neither Mr. Jubelirer nor Mr. Brightbill returned telephone calls on Wednesday. The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review quoted Mr. Jubelirer as saying the election was "a dramatic earthquake."

At least 11 other Republican incumbents lost, and several elections were too close to call.

In a House contest, State Representative Thomas L. Stevenson of Pittsburgh was defeated by Mark Harris, a 21-year-old student.

While conservatives were cheering, G. Terry Madonna, an election analyst at Franklin and Marshall College in Lancaster, Pa., said the results could cheer Democrats, as well.

Dr. Madonna pointed to a special election in Chester County, outside Philadelphia, where a Democrat, Andrew Dinniman, won a Senate seat in a district dominated by Republicans. As the party moves right, Dr. Madonna said, "the moderate Republicans may vote for Democrats now."

On blogs and talk radio shows, conservatives have been engaged in an intramural debate about whether to work hard in the November Congressional elections or sit them out to punish Republican Party leaders.

"The message here is get engaged," said Bridgett Wagner of the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy group here. "This will give encouragement to those who might have been tempted to sit on the sideline."

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

May 18, 2006

Bush Pledges Vigorous Fight to Retain Republican Control of Congress

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

WASHINGTON, May 17 — President Bush vowed Wednesday to lead an aggressive campaign this fall to maintain Republican control of Congress, saying there was a "stark difference" between the two parties.

The president, speaking at a Republican National Committee fund-raiser, left little doubt that the White House would return to the same themes it used over the past six years, portraying Democrats as weak on terrorism and committed to higher taxes and government spending. As he did in 2002 and 2004, he repeatedly invoked the memory of the attacks of Sept. 11.

"It's a stark choice," Mr. Bush said. "And I'm going to keep talking about it because we have a record to run on."

"We are the party of the future, and our candidates will be running against the party of the past — a party that offers no new ideas like the Republican Party, a party that can only offer opposition," Mr. Bush said.

But Mr. Bush, in an acknowledgment of the difficult political straits he and his party face, also offered a strong defense of the war in Iraq — the issue that his chief political adviser, Karl Rove, said was responsible for sapping much of the president's popularity. Mr. Bush said he was confident that the increasingly unpopular war would produce a stable democracy in Iraq.

"The enemy can't defeat us in Iraq — and they can't defeat us anywhere else in the world," Mr. Bush said "The only way we can be defeated is if we lose our nerve — and the Republican Party will not lose its nerve."

Karen Finney, the communications director for the Democratic National Committee, called Mr. Bush's remarks "an example of the president's chronic pattern of misleading the American people."

"The truth is America people will be faced with a choice: more of the same Bush deficits, divisiveness and deception, or a new direction based on honest leadership and real security," she said.

Mr. Bush also argued strongly to the crowd of 800 Republican donors in support of the changes in immigration law he proposed in a speech to the nation on Monday night, including tougher border enforcement mechanisms and setting up a system for allowing many immigrants who came here illegally to try to become American citizens. Those remarks drew barely a ripple of applause from the crowd.

Suggesting that he saw political benefit in what many Democrats view as a political liability for Republicans, Mr. Bush boasted of the changes in the Medicare prescription drug program passed by Congress in the face of criticism that it is complicated and unwieldy.

"I want to remind you that for years the Democrats have promised our seniors a stronger Medicare system," he said. "But we delivered. We reformed Medicare." '

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

Who Isn't A 'Values Voter'?

By George F. Will
Thursday, May 18, 2006; A23

An aggressively annoying new phrase in America's political lexicon is "values voters." It is used proudly by social conservatives, and carelessly by the media to denote such conservatives.

This phrase diminishes our understanding of politics. It also is arrogant on the part of social conservatives and insulting to everyone else because it implies that only social conservatives vote to advance their values and everyone else votes to . . . well, it is unclear what they supposedly think they are doing with their ballots.

On Sunday a Los Angeles Times article on the possibility of a presidential run by Florida Gov. Jeb Bush reported: "The Family Research Council, an influential evangelical activist group, has invited Gov. Bush to appear at a fall conference of 'values voters.' " On Monday the Wall Street Journal quoted a pastor who is president of a Texas-based organization, Vision America, that mobilizes conservative pastors: "Values voters see their vote as a sacred trust." The phrase "values voters," which has become ubiquitous, subtracts from social comity by suggesting that one group has cornered the market on moral seriousness.

Last Saturday, when John McCain delivered the commencement address at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, he was said to be reaching out to values voters. Hillary Clinton, speaking recently at the annual U.S. Chamber of Commerce convention, scolded "kids," by which she evidently meant young adults, for thinking "work is a four-letter word." She was said to be courting values voters. If so, those voters must value slapdash rhetorical nonsense as well as work.

It is odd that some conservatives are eager to promote the semantic vanity of the phrase "values voters." And it is odder still that the media are cooperating with those conservatives.

Conservatives should be wary of the idea that when they talk about, say, tax cuts and limited government -- about things other than abortion, gay marriage, religion in the public square and similar issues -- they are engaging in values-free discourse. And by ratifying the social conservatives' monopoly of the label "values voters," the media are furthering the fiction that these voters are somehow more morally awake than others.

Today's liberal agenda includes preservation, even expansion, of the welfare state in its current configuration in order to strengthen an egalitarian ethic of common provision. Liberals favor taxes and other measures to produce a more equal distribution of income. They may value equality indiscriminately, but they vote their values.

Among the various flavors of conservatism, there is libertarianism that is wary of government attempts to nurture morality and there is social conservatism that says unless government nurtures morality, liberty will perish. Both kinds of conservatives use their votes to advance what they value.

Only one Republican senator -- let us now praise New Hampshire's John Sununu -- voted for the measure to take the money for Alaska's "bridge to nowhere" and spend it for Hurricane Katrina relief, and also voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment (which would clutter the Constitution with the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman). The former vote affirmed the value of common sense; the latter, by opposing federal usurpation of the traditional state responsibility for marriage law, affirmed the value of cultural federalism. Is Sununu a values voter?

McCain, who also opposes the marriage amendment (but supports an Arizona initiative to define marriage there as between a man and a woman), says he would have voted for the bridge-for-Katrina money swap, had he not been away from the Senate that day. Perhaps he was out wooing values voters. Is he one?

Attempts to assign values-seriousness can get complicated: Freedom and happiness are valuable. Arguably, governmental actions that did much to increase freedom and happiness in the past half-century were state laws liberalizing divorce. These made important contributions to the emancipation of men and especially women from mistaken marriages. Perhaps the most important of these laws -- it was among the most liberal and was in the most populous state -- was signed by a divorced governor, Ronald Reagan. What do socially conservative values voters make of that ?

The two front-runners for the 2008 presidential nominations are studies in contrasts, yet they have two things in common. First, both stand to gain from a Republican debacle this November: The weaker that Republicans look on Wednesday morning, Nov. 8, the easier it will be for Clinton to dampen Democrats' anxieties about her electability, and the larger she looms, the more the Republicans will focus on the electability of their competing candidates, which will favor McCain. Second, both are and will remain busy courting only values voters, because there is no other kind.

georgewill@washpost.com

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Administration officials have repeatedly said they hope to cut the U.S. presence in Iraq this year, and some lawmakers appear to be growing impatient as the year nears the six-month mark.

"We just seem to have a policy of more of the same," Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said. "The struggle to form a government goes on interminably. The president says there's a workable strategy in place that will allow for a significant troop withdrawal this year. But since he said that, we've seen a huge rise in ethnic violence, the proliferation of militias that seem out of control, certainly a lengthening of the American casualty roster."

Rumsfeld also reprised some of his past optimism about the war in Iraq, which has grown increasingly unpopular with the public and dragged down President Bush's poll ratings in recent months. With the formation of a new government almost complete, Rumsfeld said, Iraq has "entered a hopeful new phase in what has been a long and difficult journey."

Asked about Rumsfeld's disinclination to promise big troop cuts, Thomas Donnelly, a defense analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, commented, "Reality intrudes." He said it was his view that "it was absurd to think that this was going to be the year of withdrawal," when the reality is that a large U.S. troop presence will be required for several years. "It's probably better to put it on the table now, instead of closer to the midterm elections" in November, he added.

Retired Army Col. Richard H. Sinnreich, an expert on defense planning and strategy, offered a more negative interpretation -- that the Bush administration "is getting desperate." He said, "Midterm elections are approaching and the administration's in a fix: The Iraqis aren't ready and everyone knows it, but we're beginning to break the bank," in terms of straining the U.S. military.

Much of the hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee's defense subcommittee focused on Bush's decision earlier this week to place 6,000 National Guard soldiers on the U.S.-Mexican border. "It is not going to be a stress on the National Guard to do that function," Rumsfeld insisted. To the contrary, he said, "It will be beneficial to the Guard because they'll be doing the very same things they would be doing if they were training their two weeks on an exercise basis, as opposed to doing something that the country really needs."

Army Lt. Gen. H Steven Blum, the chief of the National Guard Bureau, who also appeared, emphasized that the new border mission will use only about 2 percent of the 445,000 troops in the Guard. "We have sufficient soldiers to do the overseas war fight, prepare for the upcoming hurricane season, [and] still have the forces that we need to respond for terrorism in this country or a WMD event," Blum said.

On a related issue, Rumsfeld said he opposes giving the Guard a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which currently has six members: the chairman, the vice chairman, and the chiefs of the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force. Many lawmakers support an expansion, but Rumsfeld said that "the way we look at it is that the Army includes the total Army, and the Air Force the total Air Force, and that to begin to segment them inside the Joint Chiefs of Staff is not a good idea."

Blum said he is confident the Pentagon leadership will ensure that the Army and Air Force give the Guard better treatment than it has received in the past, saying that current officials are committed "to not repeating the long and sordid past that the Guard has had with its parent services."

But the hearing, the first since several prominent retired generals called for Rumsfeld's resignation last month, repeatedly returned to Iraq.

Asked about the generals' criticism, Rumsfeld minimized the number of critics as a handful out of several thousand, and attributed it to dislike of the changes he has brought to the Pentagon. "I really, honestly believe that if you undertake the kinds of transforming in this department, any big department, and if you do something, somebody's not going to like it," he said. "And we've done a lot."

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

Military officials told NBC News that the Marine Corps' own evidence appears to show Murtha is right.

A videotape taken by an Iraqi showed the aftermath of the alleged attack: a blood-smeared bedroom floor and bits of what appear to be human flesh and bullet holes on the walls.

The video, obtained by Time magazine, was broadcast a day after town residents told The Associated Press that American troops entered homes on Nov. 19 and shot dead 15 members of two families, including a 3-year-old girl, after a roadside bomb killed a U.S. Marine.

On Nov. 20, U.S. Marines spokesman Capt. Jeffrey Pool issued a statement saying that on the previous day a roadside bomb had killed 15 civilians and a Marine. In a later gunbattle, U.S. and Iraqi troops killed eight insurgents, he said.

U.S. military officials later confirmed that the version of events was wrong.

Murtha, a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq, said at a news conference Wednesday that sources within the military have told him that an internal investigation will show that "there was no firefight, there was no IED (improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."

Military officials say Marine Corp photos taken immediately after the incident show many of the victims were shot at close range, in the head and chest, execution-style. One photo shows a mother and young child bent over on the floor as if in prayer, shot dead, said the officials, who spoke to NBC News on condition of anonymity because the investigation hasn't been completed.

One military official says it appears the civilians were deliberately killed by the Marines, who were outraged at the death of their fellow Marine.

“This one is ugly," one official told NBC News.

Three Marine officers — commanders in Haditha — have been relieved of duty, and at least 12 Marines in all are under investigation for what would be the worst single incident involving the deliberate killing of civilians by U.S. military in Iraq.

The Marine Corps issued a statement in response to Murtha's remarks:

"There is an ongoing investigation; therefore, any comment at this time would be inappropriate and could undermine the investigatory and possible legal process. As soon as the facts are known and decisions on future actions are made, we will make that information available to the public to the fullest extent allowable."

Murtha held the news conference to mark six months since his initial call for "redeployment" of U.S. forces from Iraq.

He said U.S. forces were under undue pressure in Iraq because of poor planning and allocation of resources by the Bush administration.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

© 2006 MSNBC.com

Yes He Would

by Paul Krugman

"But he wouldn't do that." That sentiment is what made it possible for President Bush to stampede America into the Iraq war and to fend off hard questions about the reasons for that war until after the 2004 election. Many people just didn't want to believe that an American president would deliberately mislead the nation on matters of war and peace.

Now people with contacts in the administration and the military warn that Mr. Bush may be planning another war. The most alarming of the warnings come from Seymour Hersh, the veteran investigative journalist who broke the Abu Ghraib scandal. Writing in The New Yorker, Mr. Hersh suggests that administration officials believe that a bombing campaign could lead to desirable regime change in Iran - and that they refuse to rule out the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

"But he wouldn't do that," say people who think they're being sensible. Given what we now know about the origins of the Iraq war, however, discounting the possibility that Mr. Bush will start another ill-conceived and unnecessary war isn't sensible. It's wishful thinking.

As it happens, rumors of a new war coincide with the emergence of evidence that appears to confirm our worst suspicions about the war we're already in.

First, it's clearer than ever that Mr. Bush, who still claims that war with Iraq was a last resort, was actually spoiling for a fight. The New York Times has confirmed the authenticity of a British government memo reporting on a prewar discussion between Mr. Bush and Tony Blair. In that conversation, Mr. Bush told Mr. Blair that he was determined to invade Iraq even if U.N. inspectors came up empty-handed.

Second, it's becoming increasingly clear that Mr. Bush knew that the case he was presenting for war - a case that depended crucially on visions of mushroom clouds - rested on suspect evidence. For example, in the 2003 State of the Union address Mr. Bush cited Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes as clear evidence that Saddam was trying to acquire a nuclear arsenal. Yet Murray Waas of the National Journal reports that Mr. Bush had been warned that many intelligence analysts disagreed with that assessment.

Was the difference between Mr. Bush's public portrayal of the Iraqi threat and the actual intelligence he saw large enough to validate claims that he deliberately misled the nation into war? Karl Rove apparently thought so. According to Mr. Waas, Mr. Rove "cautioned other White House aides in the summer of 2003 that Bush's 2004 re-election prospects would be severely damaged" if the contents of an October 2002 "President's Summary" containing dissents about the significance of the aluminum tubes became public.

Now there are rumors of plans to attack Iran. Most strategic analysts think that a bombing campaign would be a disastrous mistake. But that doesn't mean it won't happen: Mr. Bush ignored similar warnings, including those of his own father, about the risks involved in invading Iraq.

As Joseph Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace recently pointed out, the administration seems to be following exactly the same script on Iran that it used on Iraq: "The vice president of the United States gives a major speech focused on the threat from an oil-rich nation in the Middle East. The U.S. secretary of state tells Congress that the same nation is our most serious global challenge. The secretary of defense calls that nation the leading supporter of global terrorism. The president blames it for attacks on U.S. troops."

Why might Mr. Bush want another war? For one thing, Mr. Bush, whose presidency is increasingly defined by the quagmire in Iraq, may believe that he can redeem himself with a new Mission Accomplished moment.

And it's not just Mr. Bush's legacy that's at risk. Current polls suggest that the Democrats could take one or both houses of Congress this November, acquiring the ability to launch investigations backed by subpoena power. This could blow the lid off multiple Bush administration scandals. Political analysts openly suggest that an attack on Iran offers Mr. Bush a way to head off this danger, that an appropriately timed military strike could change the domestic political dynamics.

Does this sound far-fetched? It shouldn't. Given the combination of recklessness and dishonesty Mr. Bush displayed in launching the Iraq war, why should we assume that he wouldn't do it again?  

© Copyright 2006 New York Times

© Copyrighted 1997-2006
www.commondreams.org

Opinion • Invective • Satire • Snark | Wednesday, May 17, 2006

Fast-track Flyboy
from Michael Graham

May 17, 2006 (apj.us)

Editor's note: This is an e-mail message Michael Graham sent two days ago to a highly reputed investigative "blog" run by a progressive think tank. Mr. Graham was responding to blog entries concerning Bush's overuse of the National Guard.

Dear troublemakers,

I used to be a prize-winning reporter, so hear me out. Before that, I served in the real Air Force, as a commissioned officer in counterintelligence, at the same time George W. Bush was hiding out in the Texas Guard. At that time, the Guard did relatively little unless there was a hurricane or something. They certainly didn't have to worry about combat.
My theory is that Commander Codpiece -- insanely addicted to power -- is so hung up on the fact that he was a coward back then that he is compensating for it now by forcing today's Guard to be heroes. That way he can be one retroactively -- heroism by association. That may sound nutty, but the man is batshit nuts. And it is just a theory.

But here is something that is provable. No one in journalism has picked up one aspect of Bush's past: He never was properly trained to be a second lieutenant in the first place! I'm talking about before flight school, entrance to which requires an officer's commission.

Those of us in the real Air Force got commissioned in one of three ways: The Air Force Academy, ROTC, or -- if already college graduates -- the Officer Training School at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. If you saw the film An Officer and a Gentleman, depicting the Navy's version, you have a rough idea of what that training was like. It was goddamned hard.

But young Georgie didn't have to go through it. If you examine his records, you will find that he was given a direct commission as a second lieutenant after completing enlisted basic training and nothing more! Bang: He went directly from Airman Third Class, which is the rank of someone just out of basic, to a second lieutenant with a few typewriter keystrokes. Then he went to flight school.

Now I don't know if this was standard procedure for everyone in the Guard -- I was too busy spying on Americans to pay attention. We always assumed that Guardsmen and Reservists who wore the same uniform and the same insignia of grade as we did had undergone same training we did. But some kind of favoritism certainly applied to the arrogant young punk who was to become Commander Codpiece -- again, a psycho of the first magnitude who really and truly believes he is a war hero.

I tried to point out this little discrepancy to certain journalists during the media flap over Bush's truncated Guard Duty. But it was of secondary importance at the time, and then it got lost in the shuffle and the Dan Rather - Swift Boat dust-up. But you guys might want to revisit it, as long as Bush keeps the National Guard on the front page. His own Guard service reeks of corruption.

If I were working the story, I would simply call the USAF Officer Training School in San Antonio and get the CO on the line. Ask him when Bush graduated from OTS. He, of course, will not be able to. Then it should be an easy task to find his records as an enlisted recruit.

Then the obvious question is: Who decided this asshole should be an officer and a gentleman? Put that to his new press secretary. I guarantee it will be a Kodak moment.

And—just as a reminder—Bush got into the Guard itself corruptly. Helen Thomas told me he got in ahead of 1500 other young Texas guys who preceded him in line.

The story about how Lt. Bush got out of the Guard has been covered to death. I think it's time to revisit the way he became Lt. Bush in the first place.

Michael A. Graham
OTS class 67-E, SN FV3205188

Copyright © 2006, 1996-2005, American Politics Journal Publications, Inc

Conservative women's group launches grassroots effort targeting schools that accept homosexuality

05/16/2006 @ 1:59 pm

Filed by RAW STORY

The largest conservative Christian organization targeted at women has quietly introduced a grassroots "risk audit" program aimed at rolling back gay, lesbian and HIV programs in American schools, RAW STORY has found.

Concerned Women for America, a $10 million-a-year nonprofit and lobbying group, announced their "risk audit plan" in late April. The plan seeks to engage parents in a broad national effort to target schools which "promote" gay and lesbian activity by embracing non-discrimination policies and safe-sex curricula or harbor "objectionable" gay and lesbian novels aimed at children.

"Every school district in America has an absolute responsibility to protect children while they are at school," the group writes in their 24-page audit plan. "There is no legitimate rationale for giving or implying endorsement of homosexual, bisexual or gender-variant behaviors among children of any age."

"It is not a viewpoint," they write, "but a high-risk and often lethal behavior."

According to the document, homosexuality increases the risk of anal cancer, smoking, domestic violence, breast cancer and promiscuity.

Perhaps most striking about the audit plan is a detailed survey which allows parents to rate their children's school based on how tolerant it is to homosexual themes. The 100-point audit questionnaire singles out topics such as "anti-harassment or anti-bullying" policies, "objectionable books" in libraries, "diversity days" and curricula that include "tolerance programs" or "families headed by homosexuals." Schools are penalized most for including HIV/safe-sex curricula, "homosexual clubs," or required teacher sensitivity training.

"It's a good way to determine quickly if your school has knowingly or unknowingly let homosexual activists and materials in the door under the radar of 'diversity' or 'anti-bullying' or 'AIDS education,'" CWA's Virginia State Director Patricia Phillips said in a release.

Gay group says audit 'sad"

Gay groups are troubled by the audit. Jason Cianciotto, research director at the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, says Concerned Women distorts existing research.

"From a research perspective it's just amazing to look at what they pass for justification," Cianciotto said. "They're actually advocating that students should not be protected from violence and harassment in school. And what they're using to justify that is research that's been proven to be false."

"It's a common tactic for these groups to take a social science research article that had a study sample of men of a certain age range who are HIV positive and attributing the behaviors of that study population to say all gay and lesbian people" exhibit health and mental issues.

"It almost seems that Concerned Women for America would rather that GLBT youth continue to get beaten up, continue to be at high risk for suicide and continue running away from home," said Human Rights Campaign spokeswoman Candace Gingrich. "It's really sad, because that's the statement they"re sending. They"d rather people remain silent and our children remain at risk."

Both the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the Human Rights campaign say that the CWA audit likely comes in response to polls showing that American youth are increasingly supportive of gay rights.

"Religious groups like CWA, Focus on the Family and in particular ex-gay programs have really been spending a lot more resources over the last couple of years in reaching out to young people," Cianciotto said. "Young people have been consistently shown in public opinion polls to be far more supportive of equality for lesbian/gay/bisexual and transgendered people than older generations."

Concerned Women for America's media affairs office took a message but did not return two calls for comment.

According to an audio clip posted on their website, the audit was created after the Southern Baptist Convention passed a resolution in 2005 urging churches to determine if the public schools in their area were promoting homosexuality.

A recent report by the Gay Lesbian and Straight Educators Network, endorsed by the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, suggests the group's audit breaks with current psychological thinking.

"Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth have few opportunities for observing positive role modeling by adults due to the general cultural bias that makes gay, lesbian and bisexual people largely invisible," asserts Just the Facts About Sexual Orientation & Youth. "It is this isolation and lack of support that accounts in part for the higher rates of emotional distress, suicide attempts and risky sexual behavior and substance use that gay, lesbian and bisexual students report compared to heterosexual students."

Concerned Women for America disagrees. They say schools are putting children at risk by exposing them to the "homosexual agenda." The audit, they assert, gives parents an opportunity to fight back.

"Most parents I would think would be concerned with what they're introducing to the kids directly," says CWA's Director of the Culture and Family Institute Robert Knight in a audio clip posted on the group's website. "And this gives them the tools to find out and do something about it."

"We really recommend that they use them, and also that they tell us what they've found," he adds.

Concerned Women for America's survey also includes 'suggested school districts" for targeted activism. Among them are Grossmont Union High School in La Mesa, California; Denver Public Schools in Colorado; and Lexington Public Schools in Massachusetts.

Concerned Women for America was founded in 1979 by the wife of fundamentalist Baptist minister and Moral Majority co-founder Tim LaHaye. The organization pioneered a "kitchen table activist" grassroots lobbying strategy, spreading the fight from Washington to a panoply of local chapters across the country. The group claims to be the largest women's organization in the country and has a subscription mailing base of 200,000.

In 2004, activist blogger Michael Rogers of blogACTIVE alleged that the group's chief financial officer Lee LaHaye was an ">openly gay man." The group did not rebut the charge.

The audit also includes a sample press release which chapters can send to local media.

Simply put, CWA seeks to eradicate teaching that suggests homosexuality is acceptable.

"The majority of students are being successfully indoctrinated with the belief that homosexual behavior is a right and is relatively harmless," the audit plan asserts. "The truth is otherwise."

Big Oil Launches Attack On Al Gore

Today, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) will unveil two 60-second TV ads focusing on what it calls “global warming alarmism and the call by some environmental groups and politicians to reduce fossil fuel and carbon dioxide emissions.” The ad, which will be aired in more than a dozen cities across the country, is being released just a week before the May 24th opening (in LA and NYC) of Al Gore’s new movie on global warming, An Inconvenient Truth.

Who is CEI? The Washington Post explains:

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, which widely publicizes its belief that the earth is not warming cataclysmically because of the burning of coal and oil, says Exxon Mobil Corp. is a “major donor” largely as a result of its effort to push that position.

CEI also gets funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Exxon documents reveal the company gave $270,000 to CEI in 2004 alone. $180,000 of that was earmarked for “global climate change and global climate change outreach.” Exxon has contributed over $1.6 million to CEI since 1998.

CEI’s general counsel Sam Kazman said, “I think what attracted [Exxon] to us was our position on global warming.” CEI’s position? The Institute believes the dangers of global warming are akin “to that of ‘an alien invasion.’”

Exxon’s spokesperson Tom Cirigliano has explained why the company is so dedicated to funding CEI’s pushback on global warming:

We want to support organizations that are trying to broaden the debate. … There is this whole issue that no one should question the science of global climate change that is ludicrous. That’s the kind of dark-ages thinking that gets you in a lot of trouble.

The science is not questioned because the science behind global warming is indisputable. Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions. And the EPA has said that the recent warming trend “is real and has been particularly strong within the past 20 years…due mostly to human activities.”

For the oil industry, Al Gore’s film exposing the truth is perceived as a threat, and they have no shortage of funds to try to distort it.

© 2005-2006 Center for American Progress Action Fund

Bush budget scraps 9,790 border patrol agents
President uses law's escape clause to drop funding for new homeland security force

- Michael Hedges, Houston Chronicle
Wednesday, February 9, 2005

Washington -- The law signed by President Bush less than two months ago to add thousands of border patrol agents along the U.S.-Mexico border has crashed into the reality of Bush's austere federal budget proposal, officials said Tuesday.

Officially approved by Bush on Dec. 17 after extensive bickering in Congress, the National Intelligence Reform Act included the requirement to add 10,000 border patrol agents in the five years beginning with 2006. Roughly 80 percent of the agents were to patrol the southern U.S. border from Texas to California, along which thousands of people cross into the United States illegally every year.

But Bush's proposed 2006 budget, revealed Monday, funds only 210 new border agents.

The shrunken increase reflects the lack of money for an army of border guards and the capacity to train them, officials said.

Retired Adm. James Loy, acting head of the Department of Homeland Security until nominee Michael Chertoff takes over, said funding only 210 new agents was a "recognition that we need to balance those things as we go on down the road with other priorities."

The White House referred questions about the border agents to the Homeland Security Department.

The law signed by Bush had a caveat that went virtually unreported at the time. A summary, published by the Senate Government Affairs Committee, required the government to increase the number of border patrol agents by at least 2,000 per year, "subject to available appropriations."

Democrats were unhappy that the proposed budget used the escape clause so soon after the president approved the huge boost in border agents.

"We know we must do more to shore up security along our borders," said Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, top Democrat on the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. "The president's budget does not even attempt to meet this challenge."

Some Republicans also were displeased.

"This is an area of homeland security that needs to be ramped up in order to increase surveillance and patrols of our nation's vast and often remote borders," said Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

A Jan. 24 letter signed by leading Republican lawmakers implored the president to fully fund the new law "in order to secure our borders against infiltration by terrorists."

The lead signer was Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of GOP efforts to toughen immigration laws and anti-terrorism statutes.

Page A - 8

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

Shareholders approved a company request to increase its authorized share count to 2 billion from 1 billion. Lesar said a stock split was planned sometime in the next two months.

Shareholders rejected a request by a group of Texas and Kansas shareholders for adoption of a policy based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Halliburton directors, noting that the company does business in more than 100 countries and refrains from doing business where prohibited by the U.S. government, did not support the proposal.

About 100 people protested outside the meeting. A masked man beat on a large empty jug and protesters chanted, "The whole world is watching," and "Shame on you," while police made the arrests. A designated area had been set up for the protest, and police had told protesters not to leave that area.

One of those arrested was wearing a Dick Cheney mask. The vice president formerly headed Halliburton, which has drawn criticism for its big government contracts, some awarded without competitive bidding. Its KBR unit provides support services for troops stationed in the Middle East.

Lesar said afterward that the protest did not bother him.

"I cannot change the fact that my predecessor is the vice president of the United States," he said.

Protesters carried signs such as "Bush Lied," and "Record Corrupt Blood Soaked Profits." Oklahoma Veterans for Peace lined up 37 pairs of combat boots to represent Oklahoma soldiers killed in Iraq.

"I think many Americans, myself included, are concerned that America is becoming a nation of, for and by corporate profits," said Nathaniel Batchelder, a member of the veterans group.

Jan Gaddis of Duncan held up an "I Support Halliburton" sign.

"It is not some monolithic organization that is devoid of humanity," she said. "They are a very responsible corporate citizen and their employees are involved in the local community and churches."

The Houston-based company said it decided to meet in the southern Oklahoma city of Duncan where it was founded to highlight company operations that remain here.

Critics accused it of seeking a friendly and remote location in an attempt to duck protests. The company is the leading employer in Duncan, which is about 80 miles south of Oklahoma City.

Halliburton spokeswoman Cathy Mann has said potential protests played no role in deciding where to hold this year's meeting. She said the company has done a good job of supporting American troops overseas.

"Halliburton supports the rights of demonstrators, even when they have the facts wrong," she said.

Halliburton shares fell $1.25 to close at $73.76 on the New York Stock Exchange. The stock has traded from $39.65 to $83.97 over the last year.

___

Associated Press writer Sean Murphy in Duncan contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

Another year, another tax cut, and look who's cleaning up

Wed May 17, 6:56 AM ET

The $70 billion tax cut legislation President Bush plans to sign today has been called many things: a jolt of economic stimulus, a contributor to runaway deficits, and a generous reward to wealthy taxpayers.

It is all of those things, but principally it is the latest - and perhaps finest - example of the perpetual motion machine that passes for tax policy in Congress and the Bush administration: making the tax code ever more complex and easier for those with squadrons of tax lawyers to exploit.

In each year since Bush took office, he has signed at least one significant modification to the tax code. Each has been much ballyhooed by the White House and congressional Republicans. Each has been larded with tax breaks for favored industries. And each has left significant issues unresolved - so that Congress has to repeat the process in subsequent years.

The latest legislation, touted mostly for extending the 15% tax rate for dividends and capital gains for two more years, would save the average taxpayer making $50,000 to $75,000 a year about $112, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Those making more than $1 million would get tax cuts exceeding $42,000.

The bill also contains breaks for General Electric, Citigroup and other non-needy companies. (The extraneous provisions grew so numerous that a second bill containing the out-takes is being considered separately.)

The measure to be signed today was considered a "must pass" bill because of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT was designed to ensure that the very wealthy pay some taxes. It now ensnares about 3 million taxpayers and would have hit an additional 15 million this year without action. Rather than fix the problem permanently, Congress passed a one-year "patch" - guaranteeing another must-pass bill next year.

This approach to tax policy makes life difficult for people trying to make long-range plans. If you don't know whether you'll be paying the AMT, or whether the rate on your investment income will be 15% or as high as 38.6%, it's virtually impossible to make informed decisions about retirement, financing college tuition and other important matters. It also makes for a more hair-raising April 15 as the tax code has grown ever more complex with each change in the law.

While the code's complexity and instability can make you miserable, it's a beautiful thing for entrenched lawmakers. It allows them to:

•Shake down the K Street lobbyists, by sending a message that at virtually any time the industries they represent can be either rewarded or punished. A 2004 tax bill - which rewarded Home Depot and Oldsmobile dealers, among others, while punishing the film industry - was the most egregious example.

• Make dubious claims, such as that Bush has "cut taxes every year" he has been in office. In fact, individual tax rates have not dropped in any appreciable sense since 2001. Subsequent bills have principally sped up the dates at which lower rates would go into effect or pushed back the dates at which they would elapse.

As for the merits of this year's tax bill, one word expresses it best: irresponsible. At a time when Bush and Congress are accelerating government spending, lower rates for upper-income taxpayers have pushed tax receipts as a percentage of the economy below 18% for five years in a row. That hasn't happened since the 1960s.

As a result, the government is running annual deficits exceeding $300 billion just as it is about to face perhaps its most serious financial crisis ever, as baby boomers start collecting Medicare and Social Security benefits.

Though a measure costing $70 billion over five years is not as big as some of Bush's earlier tax cuts, it includes a number of gimmicks to lowball its cost. One is a provision that will allow wealthy people to convert traditional IRAs, which allow tax-free deposits, to Roth IRAs, which allow tax-free withdrawals. This will generate revenue over the next five years because such conversions trigger tax payments. But, over time, the government will lose out on the taxes that traditional IRAs generate at retirement. It's also an indicator that the Republicans know future Congresses will have to pay for their irresponsibility. The only reason to convert an IRA is if you think tax rates will rise.

Nor does the centerpiece of Bush's tax policy - rates of just 15% on dividends and capital gains - passes the fairness test. Most middle-class American wage earners pay higher taxes on the fruits of their hard work than is paid by those fortunate enough to have substantial investment income.

In short, this bill is bad policy in motion. It is time to adopt taxes that are fair, sensible - and stable enough to allow average taxpayers to make plans.

Copyright © 2006 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc.

Speaking of Words: Totalitarianism

I’m an inveterate walker. Since I happen to live in Berkeley, California, you wouldn’t be surprised that I see many bumper stickers warning us about losing our cherished freedoms and democratic liberties.

Some of my favorites are “Civil Liberties-don’t leave home without them!” “It’s 2006—Do you know where your civil liberties are?”

You expect this in Berkeley, but not in the mainstream media. Today, however, New York Times columnist Bob Herbert broke the mold and wrote what few journalists have been willing—or allowed--- to write: that the unprecedented secrecy and expanded executive power of th