Donle’s Daily Dispatches

Volume 1 Issue 193        Today’s News and Views     Sunday, July 9, 2006

Sign My Guest Book

View My Guest Book

Get Your Free Guest Book

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: 2543

Update of US Casualties in Afghanistan: 317

Figures provided by

the Iraq Coalition Causality website

Support Our Troops

IMPEACH Bush/Cheney

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

Today's News and Views

July 6, 2006

Joe Lieberman's Loyalties

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Paul Rogat Loeb

This isn't the first time Joe Lieberman's placed loyalty to his career above all other allegiances. Afraid that Connecticut's Democratic voters will reject him in the primary, he's now hedging his bets by planning to run as an independent if he loses. "I have loyalties that are greater than those to my party," he says, and tries to make this sound noble.

Lieberman made a similar choice in the 2000 election. He hedged his bets then as well, by running for reelection as Connecticut Senator while also running for Vice President. It sent a great message of confidence for the ticket he was part of, but worse yet, had Gore won (as he would have without the Florida machinations), Lieberman would have had to resign his Senate seat, and be replaced by a Republican appointed by Republican Governor John Rowland. Given that the Senate ended up split 50/50 (until Senator Jeffords left the Republican party), this would have brought about a major political loss. But none of that mattered to Joe. His prime loyalty has always been to himself, from the first time he took money from William F. Buckley to run against moderate Republican Lowell Weickert.

Of course, Lieberman's been looking more and more like a Bush-Cheney Republican as he defends one after another of the administration's positions. There's no clean solution to their disaster in Iraq. But while we can argue different approaches for withdrawal, Lieberman not only backed the war initially, but also continues to give Bush political cover on it, denying the magnitude of the disaster and attacking the patriotism and judgment of any who'd question our occupation. Lieberman's self-created role as political enforcer has a long heritage. Eleven years ago, Lieberman joined Lynne Cheney in co-founding the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. Their purpose was to attack dissident educators, setting themselves up as cultural commissars who took on the right to decide what was and wasn't appropriate patriotism when educators explored key public issues. Their approach would have fit well in Communist East Germany, but seemed strangely out of place in a democracy, and Lieberman's never disassociated himself from it.

Of course, Bush might not be even president had Lieberman not hamstrung Gore by arguing against demanding a full recount of the Florida ballots. Or if he'd held Dick Cheney even slightly accountable in their Vice Presidential debate for stands like opposing the freeing of Nelson Mandela from a South African prison, instead of cozying up to him in a fawning love fest. Maybe it was predictable that he'd support Bush's regressive energy bill, tax plans, and judicial nominations.

Lieberman has already gotten endorsement from Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter and financial backing from major Republican lobbyists. He's already suggested that hospitals should have the right to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims, and force them to go elsewhere in the middle of the night. Maybe he should just drop the pretense and run as a Bush-Cheney Republican without any further evasions.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, winner of the 2005 Nautilus Award for the best book on social change, and Soul of a Citizen. See www.paulloeb.org.

To donate to Lieberman challenger Ned Lamont, visit http://nedlamont.com/

© BuzzFlash.

This Modern World: The threat to journalism

It is morally and patriotically wrong to have so many American vets severely and even 100% disabled who receive paltry support from our government without a rousing call to action from our people. It is wrong that so many troops are sent to battle without armor protection and even sometimes enough bandages, wrong that previous generations of veterans are having relapses of post traumatic stress syndrome contracted in previous wars.  Yet  we are still not roused to action and conscience worthy of the crisis so many of our heroes face.

I propose we coin a term, and repeat it often: homeless heroes.

The cartoon here sums it up perfectly, a truly wonderful blend of journalism and art; the brief and simple message of his picture tells the story better than all my words. Had the cartoonist been a conservative he would have received calls from the Richard Mellon Scaifes, syndication deals with conservative publications, and the support and promotion that conservatives give conservatives, but progressives of means, shamefully and inexplicably, rarely give to progressives who do the work that often matters the most.

So while the politicians wave the flag on the 4th, the partisans and ideologues dish out the trash talk of treason, a nation waiting to be roused by the call of conscience and community suffers fools who speak falseness to power, while we walk by the nameless and voiceless heroes on our streets, passing along cartoons penned by hands with no name, with the message of goodness, truth and patriotism of the real America.

So let us look at his picture and be moved, and at this moment of crisis for our country, and crisis for these heroes, let us act.

Instead of answering the charge of treason in kind, we should put our idealism and patriotism forward to give voice to these heroes, to those who serve and suffer, to those who deserve our support on the 5th of July, and the 6th of July, when the fireworks are stilled, the bands go home, and the empty speeches of partisans are filed in the forgettable bins of gestures without substance, and politics that does not matter.

Like Washington crossing the Delaware, we should reach out to Americans across the great divide of our national divisions, to the tens of millions of Americans in military families and military communities, to the hundreds of millions of Americans in the houses of worship of the land who will stand with us, and with our heroes, and with those who are hungry and homeless whoever they may be, wherever they may be found.

To the progressive politicians, especially the Democratic heroes with military service records of bravery and honor, John Kerry, Wes Clark, Max Cleland, Bob Kerry, Daniel Inouye, Jack Murtha, John Glenn: tour the halls of Congress and the community centers of America for policies dramatically more visionary and more powerful than anything on the agenda today. Let us win our war to end homelessness among veterans, and escalate in their name our war against homelessness and hunger, wherever those ills curse our land.

To the entertainers: build on the great works by so many and champion the cause throughout the nation and the world through the USO, with the churches, among our military families and patriots everywhere. Let us light up the sky with our stars, to light up the lives of our homeless heroes.

To the blogs and the internet news sites: bring out the facts, publicize the wrongs, champion the solutions that will set things right and let us move the heart of the American spirit and the American soul with the message of the Star Spangled Banner, the Sermon On the Mount and the Battle Hymn of the Republic.

To the financiers, capitalists, progressive men and women of means: understand you have failed us, as powerfully as your conservative counterparts have fought their fight far more effectively than you, with results so obvious. It is time to join the fight, to share the cause, to put your money where your talk is, as the conservatives do. To stand with those who have the idealism, the patriotism, the people, and the message who carry the true torch of freedom and progressivism in the tradition of Jack, Bobby, Martin and FDR.

As one of our greatest would say, if he were with us today, sometimes we do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard.  So I propose we say this: We pledge ourselves that by hundredth day after the inaugural of our next President there will not be one homeless or hungry or hurting veteran of any war, from any time, any place in America, and that our real battle only begins on that hundredth day.

That we rally the idealism of our young people to reach for the skies of what is possible in America.

That we stand together to bring our patriotism of idealism and aspiration to the houses of worship, veterans halls, and town meetings of the nation.

That no matter how great the crisis, we stand for an American family that is a house with many rooms, a home without homelessness, and a land where everyone has a name, a voice, and a future worthy of this blessed place, America.

Brent Budowsky served as Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator Lloyd Bentsen, responsible for commerce and intelligence matters, including one of the core drafters of the CIA Identities Law. Served as Legislative Director to Congressman Bill Alexander, then Chief Deputy Whip, House of Representatives. Currently a member of the International Advisory Council of the Intelligence Summit. Left goverment in 1990 for marketing and public affairs business including major corporate entertainment and talent management.

To take Brent up on his challenge to eradicate homelessness among veterans, send him a message at brentbbi@webtv.net.

The Huffington Post version of this essay is available here.

Editorials

Constitutional protections
Brattleboro Reformer

Thursday, July 6

The legal minds in the Bush administration often speak about the "unitary executive" theory of government.

This theory, which hinges upon a very narrow and selective reading of the Constitution, states that the president has the arbitrary right to ignore any law that he feels is an infringement upon his power.

Additionally, any law that the president believes infringes upon his power is automatically unconstitutional.

Under the "unitary executive" system, Congress becomes irrelevant. As has been the case more than 750 times since he took office, President Bush has signed bills into law, then quietly attached addendums to these laws saying that he will not abide by them. This is why the president has not vetoed a single piece of legislation since taking office. Since he has claimed the power to reinterpret, change or ignore the law, vetoes are unnecessary.

The courts also become irrelevant. While the Supreme Court ruled last week that the prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba are subject to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration maintains it still has the right to ignore international treaties as well as acts of Congress during wartime.

However, to ensure the appearance of legality, the rubber stamp Republican Congress is preparing legislation to alter the Uniform Code of Military Justice and make it legal to try the prisoners at Guantanamo under military tribunals. In other words, they will make torture legal.

Never mind that a conservative Supreme Court, by a narrow 5-3 vote, decided that President Bush is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and thus is in a position to be possibly charged as a war criminal. The president appears ready to ignore the courts as he has ignored the Congress and has ignored the will of the people, in the name of protecting us from terrorism.

So, the question that must be asked by every American is this: Which is the greater threat to our security? Terrorism, or the Bush administration's determination to destroy our civil liberties and our system of government in the name of fighting terrorism?

Republicans, who once were suspicious of big government, have changed their tune now that they are in complete control of all three branches of the federal government. They tell us that constitutional protections do not matter in wartime.

They are wrong. The founders of our nation knew from hard experience not to place blind faith in government to act properly. That is why the Constitution is based upon a distrust of official power and is devoted to placing safeguards against the abuse of official power.

The principles of our Constitution are what every holder of a public office and every member of our military takes an oath to protect and defend. Not to the flag. Not to a particular deity. Not to a political party or to one leader. They swear allegiance to the document from which all our laws and legal principles are derived.

To disregard the Constitution in the manner that the current administration is doing, because we are supposedly in a state of war, is to destroy the principles that make this country worth defending.

We have reached a crucial point in our nation's history. Do we allow a president, his administration and his allies on the courts and in Congress to create a government far different than the founders intended?

Or do we, as Americans, insist that the rule of law still applies and that the president cannot act as if he is more important than our Constitution?

POSTED ON JULY 5, 2006:

The Cuts, The Runs. And the cunning runts

By Bill Cope

"So many minority youths had volunteered, there was literally no room for patriotic folks like me."

--Tom Delay, on why he never served in the U.S. military.

Since I last used Bush's damnable war as the dominant theme of a column, it's been 15 weeks. Or 216 more dead American soldiers ... depending on how you're keeping track.

Now, you'd think I'd be writing about nothing but the war, wouldn't you, seeing as how I consider it to be the most corrosive thing going on with my country at present, not to mention the single most durable screw-up made by any bunch of Americans in my lifetime and likely in the life of the nation.

And Lord knows, there's been plenty to write about in those weeks. Bush's little Green Zone fly-by, for instance, where he proved if you're moving fast enough, Baghdad is as safe as the Baskin-Robbins on the corner. Or the gloating we did over the bagging of Zarqawi, followed immediately by his replacement's brazen reprisal. (When are we going to learn that gloating isn't the wisest of tactics among such intensely touchy people?)

Then there's the evidence that more and more of our over-taxed troops are losing the veneer of civilized behavior--a la Haditha--and becoming precisely that which, supposedly, we go marching into other countries to stop. Or the passing of the 50,000-dead-Iraqis landmark. And in only three years! At that rate, heck ... we'll top Saddam's score in no time.

Yes, I have allowed all that and more to pass without comment, mostly because the damnable war speaks for itself. I have a hunch the only writers who can do justice to a war--any war, not only the damnable ones--are the people who were there, wading through the remains of friends and comrades and collateral damage, accumulating burdens to their consciences that we life-long civilians can't even imagine.

But Republicans, who had been showing signs of jitters in regards to staying their leader's course, have come together like crows to death, rallying around what I call "The Rove Doctrine." Of course, Carl Rove didn't invent the phrase "cut and run," nor is he the first to apply it to the Democrats' search for a way out. Rove's genius--if "genius" is the proper word for a disgusting, flabby maggot who's only accomplishment in life is destroying far better men than he'll ever be--is to coordinate the shortest route into the dimmest of minds. I mean the sort of shambling cracker who would actually swallow the claim, for example, that Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was un-American.

The following information has been circulating since before the war started and it's likely most of you have seen it, anyway. But as the Republicans posture themselves as the John Waynes while trying to define the Democrats as the Woody Allens, I feel we need a refresher on who actually did what in terms of military service. (Incidentally, John Wayne was never in the military. He only pretended to be for the movies.)

First, the cut-and-runners: Ted Kennedy was in the Army. Imagine that, the Right's most abhorred Liberal served two years--which is something Dick Cheney can't say, having successfully chased down several separate draft deferments at the height of our Vietnam involvement.

Of Democratic presidential prospects from either the recent past or the foreseeable future, include Richard Gephardt, Tom Daschle, Bob Kerry, John Kerry, Al Gore and Wesley Clark as among those who wore the uniform. Among Republicans of the same description, include only John McCain. (I don't--can't--with good conscience include GW on the list with McCain, considering he dodged Vietnam in the Texas Air Guard, then dodged the Texas Air Guard.)

Other cut-and-runners who didn't cut and run are Tom Harkin, David Bonior, Chuck Robb, Jim McDermott, Charles Rangel, John Conyers, several dozen others you likely haven't heard of, and that current voodoo doll for the Right, Jack Murtha, whose Marine Corps career stretched all the way from the Korean War to 1990 and earned him a Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts.

Now, as to the stay-the-coursers: Rick Santorum stayed the course--far away from military service, that is--as did Hastert, Frist, McConnell, Sensenbrenner, Jon Kyle, Dana Rohrabacher, John Cornyn, several dozen others you likely haven't heard of, and Saxby Chambliss, who dodged the bullet with a student deferment and an alleged bad knee before going on to accuse Max Cleland of not having enough patriotism.

In fact, our stay-the-courser-in-chief is surrounded by men whose closest brush with a uniform is when they strut by those color guard lads on their way to another photo-op: Rove, Wolfowitz, Tony Snow, Doug Feith, Scooter Libby, Andrew Card, Ashcroft ... out of the entire neo-con frat club, not one of them served anything but themselves.

Of Idaho's adamant stay-the-coursers, Butch Otter's the only one who got some military under his belt, sitting out Vietnam comfortably in the arms of the Idaho Air Guard. (Larry Craig also joined the Air Guard, but mysteriously only lasted one year of what is usually a six-year commitment. So I don't count him. One year in the Guard is like Bush's five hours in Bahgdad. Yeah, he was there. But then again, he wasn't. Know what I mean?)

•

So think about that--why people who actually spent time shooting at others and being shot at in return are now leading the charge to get our people the hell out of there. Think about why, of the 12 Iraq vets currently running for Congress, 10 of them are Democrats. And think about why the ones who stayed home, gloating over their slick ideas, seem perfectly willing to keep your sons and daughters in the desert indefinitely.

Think about it as you hear another no-way warrior mouth their little mantra. "Cut and run" will likely work on the shambling crackers. It's easy to say--not even Bush could mispronounce it--and it implies cowardice, the worst character flaw you can have to those who, in word if not deed, are constantly reminding us what tough customers they are.

But doesn't sending others out to fight and die for their particular brand of geopolitical hooey--particularly when they had every opportunity to join the fray, themselves, but ducked out of it--imply a far more profound cowardice?

Yeah, it does. The lowest of the low trick others into fighting their battles for them. We all knew that, even in grade school. So how can we have forgotten it just because the creeps made it to D.C.?

© Copyright 2006, Boise Weekly - Not Your Everyday Newspaper

George W. Bush Is Dead To Me
Nation cringes as the worst president ever continues long, painful slog to the end

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist

Friday, July 7, 2006

It is like some sort of virus. It is like some sort of weird and painful rash on your face that makes you embarrassed to walk out the door and so you sit there day after day, waiting for it to go away, slathering on ointment and Bactine and scotch. And yet still it lingers.

Some days the pain is so searing and hot you want to cut off your own head with a nail file. Other days it is numb and pain-free and seemingly OK, to the point where you think it might finally be all gone and you allow yourself a hint of a whisper of a positive feeling, right up until you look in the mirror, and scream.

George W. Bush is just like that.

Everyone I know has had enough. Everyone I know is just about done. There is this threshold of happy deadened disgust, this point where the body simply resigns itself to the pain, a point where the disease, the poison has seeped so deeply into the bones that you just have to laugh and shrug it all off and go for a drink. Or 10.

I was having cocktails recently with a group of people, among whom were two lifetime Republicans, each in his 60s, corporate businessmen, one admittedly slightly more moderate than the other (to the point where, after once hearing a senator read off a long list of Bush's hideous environmental atrocities, actually let his conscience lead his choice and ended up voting for Kerry) but nevertheless both devoted members of the party.

Bush came up, as a topic, as a cancer, as a fetid miasma in the air. They were both shaking their heads. They were sighing heavily. They were both, in a word, disgusted. The more staunchly conservative of the two even went so far as to say he was so embarrassed and humiliated by this president, by this administration, so appalled at all the war atrocities and the wiretapping and the misuse of law, the fiscal irresponsibility and the abuse of the lower classes and the outright arrogance, that if the Dems could somehow produce a decent moderate candidate with a brain, he'd have zero problem switching allegiances and voting for him. Or her.

It may not sound like much. It may not seem like a major shift. But it is, in its way, sort of massive. For thoughtful Repubs with a conscience (they actually exist, I have seen them), there is little left to defend. There is little this administration has done among all categories of ostensible GOP values that they can look to with any sort of pride. Medicare? Shrinking the budget? Smaller government? Less intervention in our lives? Reduced spending? Increased respect in the international community? Responsible international citizen? Ha. Name your topic, BushCo has failed. Spectacularly. Intentionally.

Indeed, countless Dems were disappointed with Clinton's behavior during Monicagate. Many were ashamed that he would cheapen the office so badly by such trashy moral behavior.

But that was just a cheap little affair (our allies never understood all the fuss anyway). This was never the attitude toward Clinton's politics, his capacity to understand complex issues, his astounding political savvy. No one anywhere doubted he made the country richer, more environmentally conscious, more stable, more respected and admired. Clinton was globally adored not only for his charisma but for his contributions to world peace. Plus he could actually point to Afghanistan on a map.

What a difference a handful of years makes. Now, overseas, we are a joke. A threat. A toxin. We are considered reckless and arrogant and ignorant, dangerous not just to the rest of the world but to the overall health of the planet. No one anywhere understands how a man like Bush can be the leader of the Free World, stolen election or no.

Sure, smarter Europeans know full well that the United States is deeply divided between the pseudo-religious right-wing warmongers who control a tiny cadre of the powerful elite, and, well, everyone else. It does not matter. America's reputation as a powerful and respected diplomatic peacekeeper, as the nation that sets the standards for human rights and economic freedom and choice, is hobbled. Crippled. Is very nearly dead. How quickly can we recover? How much damage has been done? History will tell, and it will be ugly indeed.

Interesting feature interview with Al Gore in Rolling Stone recently. Gore mentions two amazing things: one is the discussion he's had with generals regarding Iraq, with one coming right out and admitting that Bush's disastrous Iraq war will go down as the worst invasion in American history, our greatest misstep, our most costly and debilitating mistake. Among top brass in the know, of this there is little question.

The other was about the discussions Gore's had with various major corporate CEOs about Gore's pet issue, global warming, and how obvious it is that 15 minutes after BushCo leaves office, we will have a radically new global warming policy. In other words, Bush won't do a thing about it in the next two years, despite how obvious it shall become that we are in crisis, simply because he can't risk finally coming out and admitting yet another enormous policy disaster. Not to mention how nearly six years of enviro policy abuse, from air quality to water to forestry to pollution deregulation on all his industrial pals, can't be undone with a smirk and a prayer.

Which is just another way of saying we are currently stuck. We are swirling around the bottom of the drain, clinging on to anything that might hold us from going under for just a little while longer. We have to let the neocon disease run its course, and just pray that at the end of it all the scarring and the pain and damage will not be so permanent, and so hideous, that we can't be seen in public for a decade.

This is where it stands: Bush can in no way risk alienating the ultra-right-wing bonk-job contingent that put him in office (they are, considering Bush's 32-percent approval rating, the only ones left even remotely supporting him -- even though, according to many estimates, they're starting to abandon him, too), and hence all policy and all agenda items from here on out will be even more vicious and desperate in an attempt to shore up the base. Hence trying to mutilate the Constitution to ban gay marriage. Hence attacking the New York Times and claiming newspapers are endangering American lives.

In other words, Bush's latest nasty, Rove-designed salvos and upcoming attacks to save a sliver of power and pride and sneering GOP control are just the beginning.

However -- praise Jesus and pass the scotch -- they are the beginning of the end.

©2006 SF Gate

July 8, 2006

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Yes, the gap between what is really happening in the United States and the world as compared to the Hollywood style narrative peddled by the Rovian propaganda machine grows greater.

As many critics have noted, what the Republican Party does best is sell a story about America by playing on images and themes with deep emotional resonance to a large segment of the nation. This story is no truer in terms of facts and what is happening than an episode of "The Brady Bunch" is to real life in American families.

This ability to sell a fictional political "narrative" to a large chunk of Americans was exemplified by the ascent and election of Ronald Reagan, who acted his way into and through the White House. He was literally the epitome of GOP production values: an actor who performed his role of president with the support of a Hollywood-style production team who wrote his "patriotic," macho scripts -- and a literal television production team that made his presidency a series of on-location "scenes" for the movie that was his presidency.

Bush wasn't an actor, but Karl Rove was his Henry Higgins. Rove molded Bush's high "affability ratings" into a fairly skilled television actor -- as long as he sticks to the script written for him. Rove provides the Hollywood style settings, the Frank Luntz focus-group tested themes and phrases, and invites the media to serve as the film production team, which they dutifully do.

Rove is so bold and rightfully confident in his skills at creating a Hollywood narrative presidency that he even announces the plot line of his Bush "feature films" in advance. Awhile back, he signaled that he was going to return to his "use the al-Qaida bogeyman to scare Americans into voting Republican" playbook for the third election cycle.

And so we have seen two "aspriational terrorist arrests" that should have made the back pages of the newspapers instead of ending up as "frightful" headlines on all the major media, particularly on television (which has the most emotional impact). We have seen Osama bin Laden (who the CIA is no longer pursuing with a focused unit) suddenly start appearing on tapes again. We have seen the long-time bogeyman al-Zaqarwi quickly replaced by a new bogeyman in Iraq (even though al-Qaeda is just one small player among the many gangs that oppose the U.S. occupation there.) We have seen all sorts of "terrorist scares" that have nothing to do with the continued disintegration of Iraq and the resurrection of the Taliban in Afghanistan. The latter two are realities --and Rove knows realities destroy the movie-going experience and disrupt the manipulation process.

Unfortunately, the Democrats are -- for a third time -- clueless about how to counteract Rove's moves from a now eminently predictable playbook. (This is the third time he has used the same strategy for an election cycle, but the has used it countless times before to get Bush out of political jams and poll slumps.)

The reality is that the Rovian Republicans -- preceded by the Reagan "brand" managers -- are just so far superior at this sort of image management and emotional manipulation than the Democrats, the Dems are just left in the dust -- and so is democracy.

The Democrats on Capitol Hill just don't have a clue on how they are being routed -- as the recent Reid-Pelosi news conference on the "issues" Democrats will run on in 2006 indicated.

Rove has, as columnist Jonathan Alter noted, "doubled down" on the failed Iraq War. He is betting that the can manipulate events to scare the American public, once again, into accepting the fiction that George W. Bush is a valiant leader fighting against the "evil doers." Rove has the advantage that he can control events, like the bizarre totally exaggerated story about the "aspirational terrorists" who allegedly planned to flood Manhattan by magically making water rise ABOVE sea level. (See our analysis of this impossiblity below.)

The Democrats have no counterattack, except leaving Americans exposed to the manipulation of primal fear that Rove excels at.

By ignoring the 800-pound guerilla in the room -- the use of terrorism and the Iraq War as a fictional political narrative that uses fear as a political weapon -- the Democrats are basically conceding the 2006 election.

The rallying of even Senate progressives, like Barbara Boxer, to the side of Joe Lieberman -- the Democratic Senator the Republicans chose to speak first in opposition to a Democratic resolution to withdraw troops from Iraq -- shows you how far away from counteracting the Rovian "scare" handbook the Dems are.

And no one can say the Dems haven't seen it before.

By now, what Rove is doing is so transparent, even a donkey could see it coming. Unless that donkey is a Democratic leader on Capitol Hill.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

© BuzzFlash.

Bush Must Have Come Up with Today's "Aspirational Terrorist Scare," Because the Idea of the Hudson River Flowing UP Into Manhattan Defies the Law of Physics

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

Is it possible that Bush himself brainstormed with Rove about the latest "Terrorist Aspirational Scare"?

The first "reports" coming from the Rovian propaganda machine claimed that a vague group of suspected terrorists were planning to flood lower Manhattan by blowing up the Holland or Lincoln Tunnels.

There was just one major problem with this latest "scare them into voting Republican for a third time" tactic: it defied the laws of gravity and basic physics.

You see, Manhattan is ABOVE sea level. A body of water, such as the Hudson River, won't rise UP without a rather sophisticated plumbing system. In short, bombing the Holland or Lincoln Tunnels could not possibly, according to the law of physics, flood lower Manhattan and "ruin the American economy by destroying Wall Street."

There might be some basement flooding, but that's about it.

It's an idea so contrary to reality and the laws of physics that only Bush himself could have come up with it.

Some first media reports even dutifully noted that government sources told them that the alleged "aspirational" terrorists got their idea of blowing up the tunnels from the Katrina disaster and the flooding of New Orleans. This is a sure sign that the idea came from the man who completely bungled Hurricane Katrina: George W. Bush. Only Bush could fail to realize that New Orleans is situated BELOW sea level, while Manhattan is ABOVE sea level.

How else do you explain the second-in-a-row crack-head scheme (after the Miami clown posse "plot") that is so ludicrous, it couldn't make it past peer review in a class of idiots?

By mid-day, Rove must have realized that he had made a big mistake going with Bush's "brainstorm" contribution to the third cycle of resurrecting the al-Qaeda bogeyman. (Even though, in a horribly cynical move that shows its true hand, the Bush Administration had the CIA close down its unit hunting Osama bin Laden. That's the reality side. On the propaganda side, they planted a recent story that Osama was reconsolidating his power over al-Qaeda, a story clearly aimed at instilling fear in the American public. After all, if the CIA isn't hunting him anymore and Bush says that he's not important, how could he becoming an increasing threat? You can't have it both ways in the real world, unless you are a demagogue.)

Because by the afternoon, we were hearing that really the alleged "aspirational" target was something more vague, like flooding the New York Subway system, which no doubt would send shivers of terror through Manhattanites because of all the rats that would hit the streets.

As for the Democrats, if they don't start denouncing this nonsense pretty soon, the scare headlines are going to drive Bush's poll numbers up, because people out in Topeka believe this stuff. That's particularly true because only the New Media is exposing the truth about Rove's "Terrorist Fear Campaign 3." He's rolling out such a predictable series of fright alerts. All one has to do is look at his frayed "fear the enemy" playbook for the 2002 and 2004 elections.

If the Democrats haven't learned how to counteract this after two election cycles, they don't deserve our financial support.

But the end result is that we will end up with two more years of one-party rule unless the Democrats starting exposing Rove's overused scare tactics, and two more years may give the Busheviks enough time to complete the conversion of America from a Constitutional democracy into a totalitarian state.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS

BuzzFlash Note: Was this written tongue and cheek? Yes and no. Anything's possible with cynical, power-hungry demagogues who have hijacked the American government. Everything in this BuzzFlash analysis is accurate. The only uncertainty is whether Bush, Rove or another crew member of the ship of fools came up with the "blowing up the Holland Tunnel and flooding Manhattan idea." Frankly, we doubt any "suspected terrorists" are THAT dumb.

Recruit 5 people to sign up for BuzzFlash alerts and help spread the truth: http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/subscribe.php

© BuzzFlash.

"Chairman Hoekstra has raised these issues with the administration to ensure that the Intelligence Committee is able to conduct its job of oversight," Mr. Ware said. "Intelligence officials have committed to being forthcoming with Congress, and Chairman Hoekstra is going to hold them to their word."

Mr. Hoekstra's blunt letter is evidence of a rift between the White House and House Republican leaders over the administration's perceived indifference to Congressional oversight and input on intelligence matters. Mr. Hoekstra wrote that he had shared his complaints with House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and that the speaker "concurs with my concerns."

A spokesman for Mr. Hastert declined to comment.

The letter appears to have resulted at least in part from the White House's decision, made early in May, to name Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, with Stephen R. Kappes as his deputy. The letter was sent the day of General Hayden's confirmation hearing before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Hoekstra (pronounced HOOK-stra) complained publicly about the choices when they were announced, but his private letter to Mr. Bush was much harsher. He warned that the choice of Mr. Kappes, who he said was part of a group at the C.I.A. that "intentionally undermined the administration," sends "a clear signal that the days of collaborative reform between the White House and this committee may be over."

Mr. Hoekstra also expressed concern about the intelligence reorganization under John D. Negroponte, the first director of national intelligence, who he said was creating "a large, bureaucratic and hierarchical structure that will be less flexible and agile than our adversaries."

Mr. Hoekstra's views on oversight appear to be shared by some other Intelligence Committee members.

"I think the executive branch has been insufficiently forthcoming on a number of important programs," Representative Heather A. Wilson, Republican of New Mexico, said in an interview. She would not discuss any programs on which the committee had not been briefed, but she said that in the Bush administration, "there's a presumption that if they don't tell anybody, a problem may get better or it will solve itself."

Ms. Wilson said she shared "deep concerns" about the pace and direction of intelligence reforms overseen by Mr. Negroponte's office. "We have some troubled programs," she said.

American intelligence agencies routinely conduct many secret programs, but under the National Security Act, the agencies are required to keep the Congressional intelligence committees "fully and currently informed of all intelligence activities." Even in the case of especially sensitive covert actions, the law requires briefings for at least the leaders from both parties of the committees and the House and Senate.

As the administration has asserted broad presidential authority to fight terrorism, concerns about Congressional oversight and checks and balances between the branches of government have become increasingly heated. Democrats complained that the administration's failure to brief the full Intelligence Committees on the N.S.A. warrantless eavesdropping, which focuses on the international communications of Americans and others inside the United States, was a violation of the National Security law. Some members of Congress said they had been briefed on the Treasury Department's bank monitoring program, which examines international money transfers through a Brussels-based consortium, only after The New York Times began making inquiries in recent months.

But the assertion that other intelligence activities had been hidden from Congress is particularly surprising coming from Mr. Hoekstra, who defended the administration's limited briefings on the N.S.A. program against Democratic criticism.

An official familiar with recent exchanges between the intelligence agencies and the House committee said Friday that General Hayden had twice briefed the full committee and had addressed Mr. Hoekstra's questions about the intelligence activities referred to in the letter. The C.I.A. director promised "a free flow of information," and Mr. Hoekstra, who initially objected to placing a military officer in charge of the C.I.A., said he would work closely with the agency's new leadership.

The official, who spoke of the briefings only when granted anonymity because they were classified, declined to say anything about what the activities were or which agencies they involved.

Officials with both Mr. Negroponte's office and the C.I.A. declined to comment specifically on Mr. Hoekstra's letter. But Carl Kropf, a spokesman for Mr. Negroponte, said that over the past year his office had "engaged in hundreds of briefings, meetings and discussions with Congressional committees."

He added, "We value this dialogue with Congress, and we will continue to provide the committee with the information they need to fulfill their responsibilities."

Jennifer Millerwise Dyck, a spokeswoman for General Hayden, said that "the director believes in the important oversight role Congress plays, and he will continue regular and transparent interactions with members."

Since his appointment as committee chairman in August 2004, Mr. Hoekstra has been a critical ally of the White House on intelligence matters. He has supported the administration's most controversial policies, including its treatment of terrorist suspects, and he has balked at Democratic demands for an investigation of pre-war intelligence on Iraq. He has defended the legality and necessity of the N.S.A. program and the bank monitoring.

Mr. Hoekstra has been one of the strongest advocates in Congress for a crackdown on leaks of classified information to the media, a cause championed by both Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

But in recent months, Mr. Hoekstra has begun to express some disaffection. In March, he joined the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, Representative Jane Harman of California, in a public critique of Mr. Negroponte's performance. He criticized intelligence officials for initially resisting his demand that thousands of captured Iraqi documents be posted on the Web. Like other House Republicans, he bristled when Porter J. Goss, a former House colleague, was forced out as C.I.A. director in early May.

Most recently, Mr. Hoekstra strongly criticized a news briefing arranged by Mr. Negroponte's office on an Army report that 500 pre-Gulf War chemical shells had been found scattered around Iraq. On June 29, Mr. Hoekstra, who had said the finding established that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, made public an angry letter to Mr. Negroponte calling the briefing "inaccurate, incomplete and occasionally misleading" and asserting that "attempts were made to downplay the significance of relevant facts."

A spokesman for Mr. Negroponte's office said he had not yet replied to the complaint.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

"I look at this as poisoning the only source of groundwater," he said, "as tantamount to lynching."

The tangled history of the disposal site, which began around 1980 as a deep injection well for saltwater wastes from drilling operations, makes apportioning blame difficult. Since then, according to records of the railroad commission, the disposal site has been under the control of six different operators. It was last operated by Basic Energy Services of Midland, which describes itself on its Web site as the nation's third largest contractor servicing oil and gas wells and used open holding tanks to store waste for pumping to a second injection well nearby.

The railroad commission said that Basic Energy had operated the tanks for more than two years without a permit, resulting in a demand by Panola County in 2003 that the disposal line under the county road be shut down. The commission has been asking the company to track any migration of pollution.

"Basic has been slow to respond to our requests," said John Tintera, the commission's assistant director for site remediation.

Ken Huseman, the president and chief executive of Basic Energy, would not respond to specific questions but said in a statement that the company's goal was to have no adverse impact on the environment, and that it would be responsive to the railroad commission.

But Mr. Hudson, who runs a local family ministry and teaches at the Church of the Living God, said the commission had close ties to the industry and had denied that DeBerry had a problem.

Mr. Hudson said he had directed his appeals, in vain, to the sole black member of the commission, Michael L. Williams, a former assistant secretary of education for civil rights at the federal Department of Education. A spokeswoman said Mr. Williams could not comment on the DeBerry case because it was "still in enforcement."

Mr. Hudson recently settled a state civil lawsuit against Basic Energy under terms that remain confidential. "We didn't get enough to get shoelaces," he said.

The lawsuit was settled, he said, after his lawyer found that the railroad commission had fined one of the site's operators, Falco S & D Inc. of Shreveport, La., $27,747 in 2000 for having illegally dumped about 3,000 barrels of chemical waste there. That made it difficult to determine Basic Energy's liability, Mr. Hudson said.

The E.P.A. has acknowledged a potential danger in the groundwater. "We found that the groundwater in the Panola County community is indeed contaminated with several substances," wrote Johnny D. Ross, project manager in the Inspector General's office in a January memo. Those substances, Mr. Ross wrote, "pose a threat to human health and the environment."

In 2003, the railroad commission found in residents' wells benzene, barium, arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury "at concentrations exceeding primary drinking water standards," said Peter Pope, a specialist with the commission.

But the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, in tests taken last August, found no excessive contamination there, said Andrea Morrow, a spokeswoman. She said she could not explain the discrepancy.

The problems go back at least to 1987 when, railroad commission records show, Mrs. Roberson began complaining of spillovers from the injection well. Her well water was discoloring her bathtub, she reported, "and it causes bad stomach problems when consumed."

The railroad commission took samples in October 1996, finding "no contamination in the Robersons' household supply water that can be attributed to oilfield sources."

By April 2003, however, commission tests found barium and chloride above maximum contaminant levels in Mr. Hudson's well, along with traces of two oilfield chemicals. The source was unclear. He plugged his well and moved to another house connected to the Bethany-Panola Public Water System.

Last year, Mr. Hudson said he obtained a $375,000 federal loan to connect the community to the same municipal supply, but the water company, concerned that the residents would be unable to repay the money, rejected the application.

The E.P.A. arranged last August for the delivery of bottled water to the Robersons and others with tainted wells. Some residents, however, have been less fortunate. Maggie Golden, a 73-year-old cousin of Mr. Hudson's mother, had been getting water piped in by Basic Energy to replace her hand-pumped spring-fed system which had been contaminated, said her sister, Mary Lee Kellum, a Houston teacher.

"Then all of a sudden they cut it off," Ms. Kellum said.

Mr. Hudson said he appealed to Basic Energy, which restored the water for about a month but then shut it off after the disposal site was closed down. They drank bottled water, but to bathe, Ms. Kellum said, "we'd go to the church and borrow water in big barrels and heat it up: the pioneer days were back again."

Her sister died in the house on June 17, 2005, Ms. Kellum said. "She just went to sleep during the night," she said. "It was stressful stuff. She said, 'I'm tired of struggling.' "

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

July 9, 2006

Recent Arrests in Terror Plots Yield Debate on Pre-emptive Action by Government

By ERIC LIPTON

WASHINGTON, July 8 — In Miami last month and now in New York, terror cases have unfolded in which suspects have been apprehended before they lined up the intended weapons and the necessary financing or figured out other central details necessary to carry out their plots.

For officials in Washington, it is a demonstration of the much-needed emphasis in this post-9/11 era for pre-emptive arrests.

"We don't wait until someone has lit the fuse to step in," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday at a news conference about the New York plot.

But the Miami and New York cases are inspiring a new round of skepticism from some lawyers who are openly questioning whether the government, in its zeal to stop terrorism, is forgetting an element central to any case: the actual intent to commit a crime.

"Talk without any kind of an action means nothing," said Martin R. Stolar, a New York defense lawyer. "You start to criminalize people who are not really criminals."

In the two most recent plots, the authorities have simultaneously warned that the suspects were contemplating horrific attacks — blowing up the Sears Tower in Chicago and setting off a bomb in a tunnel between New York and New Jersey — but then added that as far as they knew, no one was close to actually making such a strike.

In the Miami case, an F.B.I. official said at a recent hearing that the suspects apparently did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.

In New York, officials said Friday that none of the eight suspects believed to be planning the tunnel attack were in the United States, and that they apparently did not have bomb materials and had not completed reconnaissance work on their supposed target.

The arrest on April 27 in Beirut of Assem Hammoud, 31, a Lebanese man who is accused of being the mastermind of the tunnel plot, came after the authorities monitored Internet chat rooms used by Islamic extremists who had used coded language to discuss a possible attack. One American official said the members of the group had never met one another.

In announcing the case, federal officials, including Mr. Chertoff, said the government could not waste time trying to determine whether the suspects were smart enough or serious enough to turn their threats into destructive action.

"It is a mistake to assume that the only terrorist that's a serious terrorist is the kind of guy you see on television, that's a kind of James Bond type," Mr. Chertoff said Friday. "The fact of the matter is mixing a bomb in a bathtub does not take rocket science."

Representative Peter T. King, a New York Republican and the chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said that the cases also demonstrate that the authorities cannot always delay charges until they have built airtight criminal cases.

"It was essential that the F.B.I. get rid of its pre-9/11 mentality of not making an arrest until they have enough evidence to convict," Mr. King said Friday in an interview. "You can't be locking everyone up. But so long as there are reasonable grounds to make the arrest, they should do that."

Mark J. Mershon, an F.B.I. assistant director, said that the apprehensions related to the New York case — so far no one has been arrested in the United States — began after the authorities were convinced that the talk was close to turning into action.

"Plotting for this attack had matured to a point where it appeared that the individuals were about to move forward," Mr. Mershon said Friday in New York.

"They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources necessary to effectuate the attacks."

Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond in Virginia who tracks terrorism cases, said the modest evidence disclosed so far in some recent cases in relation to the ability of the suspects to deliver on their threats has caused him to wonder if politics might be a factor.

"There is some kind of public relations gained by making Americans on the one hand feel concerned that the Sears Tower in Chicago or some tunnel in Manhattan is targeted yet on the other hand feel comforted that the government is on top of it," he said.

The questions posed about some of the terror-related arrests echo doubts raised when Tom Ridge was secretary of homeland security and the Bush administration half a dozen times raised the color-coded alert warning to orange, signaling a high risk of a terrorist attack, leading skeptics to suggest the up-and-down warning levels may have been driven in part by politics.

Since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a Justice Department tally, 261 defendants have been convicted or have pleaded guilty in terrorism or terrorism-related cases. But many of those cases have only remote connections to actual terrorism plots, like the case involving six men from Lackawanna, N.Y., who pleaded guilty to attending a terrorist training camp, but never actually took part in a terror plot.

But Pasquale J. D'Amuro, former assistant director in charge of the F.B.I. office in New York, said that law enforcement officials have no choice but to act pre-emptively, even if planning has not yet turned into an active plot.

"When they go operational, they run silent," Mr. D'Amuro said. "It becomes very difficult to follow them and try to trail them."

Mr. Chertoff acknowledged the debate on Friday, saying he had heard criticism by some that "the people you are arresting are not really serious or they don't really have the capacity of actually carrying something out."

But he said that the lesson not only of Sept. 11, but of terrorist attacks since then, including bombings last year in London, is that the government has no other choice. That means, he said, acting sooner rather than later, even if it might result in skeptics suggesting the plots were more imaginary than real.

"We are dangerously putting people at risk if somehow we believe that only criminal masterminds or terrorist masterminds are a threat," he said.

Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company

L.A. Man Detained In Iraq Sues U.S.
Military Officials, Rumsfeld Named

Associated Press
Sunday, July 9, 2006; A09

LOS ANGELES, July 8 -- An aspiring Iranian American filmmaker who spent nearly two months in a prison in Iraq without being charged has sued Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld and other military officials, calling the government's detention policies unconstitutional.

Cyrus Kar, 45, of Los Angeles, seeks unspecified damages and major changes in the government's detention policies overseas.

The suit was filed this week in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California. It is the first civil case challenging detention policies in Iraq, said Mark Rosenbaum, the organization's legal director.

A phone message left for a Pentagon spokesman was not immediately returned Saturday.

When Kar was released, military officials said that he had been properly detained as "an imperative security threat" and that the matter had been handled and resolved appropriately.

"This case highlights the effectiveness of our detainee review process," spokesman Air Force Brig. Gen. Donald Alston said after Kar's release.

Kar was taken into custody in May 2005 after he visited Iraq to make a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter. Potential bomb parts were found in a taxi in which Kar was riding.

He was released July 10, 2005, after his family sued, accusing the federal government of violating his civil rights and holding him after the FBI cleared him of suspicion. He is a former U.S. Navy Seal, according to news reports.

The new lawsuit said his 55-day detention violated not only his civil rights, but also the Geneva Conventions and the law of nations.

"Human rights monitors note that the vast majority of the over 15,000 detainees in U.S. military custody in Iraq have never been charged, tried, provided counsel, or allowed to challenge their detention in court, and over one-fifth of them have been detained for over a year in this manner," the suit states.

Kar said that while he was imprisoned, he was at various times hooded and threatened, taunted and insulted by U.S. soldiers. One soldier slammed Kar's head into a concrete wall, the suit said.

What happened to him in Iraq was "a life-altering experience," Kar told the Los Angeles Times.

In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq, and Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

The Top 10 Power Brokers of the Religious Right

By Rob Boston, Church and State
Posted on July 7, 2006, Printed on July 9, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/38467/

The United States is home to dozens of Religious Right groups. Many have small budgets and focus on state and local issues; the most powerful organizations conduct nationwide operations, command multi-million-dollar bank accounts and attract millions of followers. They have disproportionate clout in the halls of Congress, the White House and the courts, and they wield enormous influence within the political system.

What follows is a list of the nation’s Top Ten Religious Right groups, as determined by publicly available financial data and political prominence. Additional information describes the organizations’ leaders, funding and activities.

1. Christian Broadcasting Network
Founder, CEO and Director:  The Rev. Pat Robertson
2004 Revenue: $186,482,060
Location: Virginia Beach, Va.
Web site: www.cbn.com

Overview: The Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN) airs Robertson’s “700 Club,” an incendiary daily mix of Pentecostal faith-healing, lifestyle advice and