More In-depth Intellectual Answers from Mr. Bush in this Morning's Press Conference:

"It is dangerous in Iraq. It's dangerous in Iraq."

"I can't put it any more plainly. Iraq's a dangerous place."

"That's leveling. It is a dangerous place."

"Now, Iraq's a danger place and I can't put it any more bluntly than that. I know it's a dangerous place."

"And Iraq is dangerous, and it's dangerous because terrorists want us to leave and we're not leaving."

"And it's dangerous and it's tough"

Yes, Mr. Bush, you seem to have now understood the concept. The irony is you don't seem to yet recognize that Iraq is also dangerous for your re-election. By the time you do, it will be too late...



- posted by a Vet @ 11:11 AM -

 
Answers from the Twilight Zone

From this morning's press conference:

QUESTION: You recently put Condoleezza Rice, your national security adviser, in charge of the management of the administration's Iraq policy. What has effectively changed since she's been in charge?

And a second question: Can you promise a year from now that you will have reduced the number of troops in Iraq?

BUSH: The second question is a trick question, so I won't answer it.

The first question was Condoleezza Rice. Her job is to coordinate inter-agency. She's doing a fine job of coordinating inter-agency. She's doing what her -- I mean, the role of the national security adviser is to not only provide good advice to the president, which she does on a regular basis -- I value her judgment and her intelligence -- but her job is also to deal inter-agency and to help unstick things that may get stuck. That's the best way to put it. She's an unsticker...

- posted by a Vet @ 9:47 AM -

 
Ft. Stewart Update - Still, a Study in Administrative Doublespeak
(See Tues Oct 21 blog post below)

The Army apparently still doesn't understand that the treatment of returning sick and wounded GIs should be a top priority issue. The Sec. of the Army designate uses language which would make us think this is just an administrative problem - he's the wrong person for the job if he can't see there is lot more urgency needed, especially because, as he notes below, that this is an "Army issue", not confined to Ft. Stewart. I've bolded some phrases below, and made some comments for your consideration:

FORT STEWART, Georgia (CNN) --After touring barracks that prompted complaints about miserable living conditions for U.S. troops, the acting secretary of the Army vowed to make improvements and allocate more money to upgrade the living quarters.

Vowed to make improvements? How about saying we are making improvements immediately to treat and care for them? Note that these are wounded and sick GIs we are talking about - over 400 of them.

Acting secretary Les Brownlee said Saturday that living conditions on the base vary greatly, and said troops with medical problems should receive preferential treatment.

How about changing "should receive" to "are receiving"?

Brownlee offered no further details.

The Army acknowledged problems at Fort Stewart after the complaints became public earlier this week. Medical facilities in particular have been stretched thin by the roughly 20,000 troops returning to the base from tours of duty in Iraq, as well as troops getting ready for overseas deployment. Of the 633 soldiers on medical hold at Fort Stewart because of illness or injury, 405 were hurt or sickened while deployed to the Persian Gulf region, according to the Army News Service.

After complaints became public? They are public now, at least in Georgia - the national press hasn't paid much attention.

Many complaints involve a lack of timely medical care, with soldiers waiting up to 45 days for procedures such as MRI tests.Many of the complaints have come from National Guard and Reserve troops placed on medical hold. According to Army doctors, medical hold cases are often difficult to diagnose, and include symptoms linked to wartime stress or trauma.

Mr. Brownlee - enough excuses. Fix the medical priorities now: it's not that hard.

"Those in medical status, they should be in the improved level of billets, those that are air conditioned and have some of the other improvements, like indoor latrines," Brownlee said.

Anybody ever spent a summer in Atlanta, without air conditioning and toilet facilities - and BEING SICK OR WOUNDED as well? Get the picture? Sick and wounded GIs can't wait until new facilities are budgeted and upgraded. Take some common sense leadership, NOW!

"We're going to move to make those improvements."
He also promised to examine other mobilization sites, to see if similar conditions existed elsewhere. If they do, he said, "We'll take appropriate action." "I want to emphasize that what happened here at Fort Stewart is not just a Fort Stewart issue," Brownlee added. "It's an Army issue. The people at Fort Stewart did what they could with what they had, but the Army has more assets and we'll focus those assets to solve any problems we've found here."Brownlee hinted Saturday that more changes might be coming."The Army does recognize its obligation to take care of all our soldiers from start to finish," he said. "We're here today to assess how we're doing with that, and to look at any areas that may need further attention."

Mr. Brownlee - the time for "hinting" is over, period. Back up your words with real action.


- posted by a Vet @ 10:52 AM -

 
But if Our Hearts and Minds Won't Follow, What's Next?

I know most of you have seen this story, but you haven't seen the real meaning of some of the statements contained therein...

Rumsfeld Heralds Shift to 'War of Ideas' on Terror
Fri October 24, 2003 06:12 AM ET

By Mark Trevelyan, Security Correspondent
PARIS (Reuters) - Questioning whether the United States is winning the war on terror, Donald Rumsfeld has set the stage for a policy shift that will put more emphasis on the struggle for hearts and minds. In a leaked memo and in public comments this week, the U.S. defense secretary stressed the importance of defeating terrorism not just through military victories but in a "war of ideas."

Translation: We've misled 70% of the people up to now, and they believed us...

In the memo, where he asked top defense officials "Are we winning or losing the global war on terror?"

Translation: I really don't have a clue as to what's going on...

And in an interview with the Washington Times, he floated the idea of a "21st century information agency in the government" to help wage the battle of minds.

Translation: I know we told everybody that we need less government in our country, but if we keep adding to the bureaucracy, it will look like we're doing something. Condi Rice has been in charge of Iraq for two weeks already, and Paul Bremer has been there for two months, and General whats-his-name was there before that and....

French terrorism expert Xavier Raufer said Washington's strategy to date "is not working, it's stupid."

Translation: Don't expect money or troops anytime soon...

U.S.-based security analysts said the leaked Rumsfeld memo was not a sign of panic, but showed the Bush administration accepting the need to update its thinking in the light of setbacks in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Translation: So that's what the public has been criticizing us about....

"We've been in Afghanistan nearly two years now and they're still shooting at us. And there may not have been an al Qaeda connection in Iraq a year ago but there sure is now," said John Pike, head of the GlobalSecurity.org think-tank.

Translation: OK, so there wasn't a connection before, but there is one now! So there!

"The perception is that the memo was leaked by Rummy and intended to demonstrate he's on the ball, he's not an idiot and he realizes they need to continue to update their planning."

Translation: Maybe if I slip them the idea that I know what I'm doing, they'll believe this too!

The temptation to scale back the U.S. occupation would increase as next year's presidential election approached, and especially if former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein were captured.

"The sign to look for is the day they get Saddam," he said. "There will be an extraordinarily large temptation to use the killing or capture of Saddam Hussein as the signal that we can now reduce our presence."

Translation: Maybe we can find one of those Saddam look-alikes... Boy, these leaked memos are a real pain.
- posted by a Vet @ 2:41 PM -

 
Leadership 101 (cont.)

On Sept 11, on this blog, I stated that, "You can tell a lot about a leader by who he chooses to be his advisors and how & when he has to let them go." Mr. Tenet and Mr. Rumsfeld should have been let go then. Now, a month and a half later, look for this to finally happen - but don't hold your breath. Mr. Bush seems unable or unwilling to remove and replace cabinet members when necessary to do so. Instead, he recycles the same ones into different positions, the latest being Condoleeza Rice. If Mr. Rumsfeld goes, look for Mr. Wolfowitz to take his place - the real architect of the Iraq war. The DoD is less than thrilled at this alarming prospect.

Mr. Clinton's administration was often criticized for making policy based on focus groups. But, Mr. Bush has outdone him. Mr Bush's method of leadership is a picture of the old idiom: A bull in a China Shop. This form of leadership presses ahead, not only with failing senior administration officials, but with personal agendas, regardless of the results. Only when the overwhelming weight of personal consequences to his reelection finally surfaces (after untold damage has been done), does he sense that something is amiss. And now, for example, he wonders, after ignoring the international community for a year, why aren't they running to his support as he goes from the UN to Asia and Australia?
- posted by a Vet @ 8:55 AM -

 
Veterans Day Ideas

There are many ways for us to show our appreciation for Veterans. Here are a couple good ones for your information. Although they both focus on Southern California, check out the links provided to see what you can do where you live.

VISIT VA HOSPITALS TO SHOW DEAN VOLUNTEERS CARE

Veterans Day is coming up on Tuesday, November 11th. Veterans Day Week, Nov 9th-15th
Let's make this day meaningful for the thousands of veterans who are currently confined to Veterans Administration Hospitals around the country. Let's show the American public and the veterans themselves that the people of the Dean campaign really care about them.
... Michael Meurer, a veteran, and other LA for Dean volunteers are currently planning Dean Visitation Days at VA Hospitals in the LA area.

Let's spread this good idea throughout the country. Let's get Dean volunteers in every state to organize a visit to their local VA hospital to make a simple show of support and provide a few words of encouragement to these men and women who have sacrificed so much for our country. Wear your Dean attire and show our Veterans that you care!

This is the link to the Veterans Health Administration Facility Directory or, look in the Government section of your telephone book to find the VA hospital nearest you.

VETERANS DAY PARADE

Hi! Us Dean supporters from Long Beach, CAare going to do a major visibility event (in our minds) @ the annual veterans day parade 11/8/03, sat. 10 a.m. you can see a description of the parade : www.veteransdayparade.com do you know of any veterans in the LA/ OC, SD or so cal area that might like to assist us (they would be most welcome after they finish marching!)

We are planning to contact veterans for peace in the event that they would like to participate. I thank you for your service to our country & we are in this particular battle as comrades! Thank you in advance,

Christina Dixon
p.s. please send reply to ckyselladixon@yahoo.com


- posted by a Vet @ 1:01 PM -

 
Memorial Day is Today

Twenty years ago, on this date in 1983, a terrorist driving a vehicle full of explosives, crashed into the Marine barracks near Beirut, killing 241. It was the first wake-up call that a new kind of threat needed to be recognized, prepared for, and anticipated in future conflicts. After-action reports noted that the policies of the administration put our service people in an untenable position.

Similarly, about 10 years ago, we learned the lesson again the hard way in Somalia (read Black Hawk Down), again with unneeded loss of life.

Today, the administration, pushing to respond to the terrorism of 9/11, has put our forces in harm's way again needlessly, by miring us, Vietnam-style (yes, that's right, there are direct comparisons, even some of the same people involved) in a conflict built on personal agendas and politics. It's a conflict that is not only misdirected against terrorism, it's one guaranteed to funnel off huge sums of money away from other important anti-terrorist actions we could be taking. As important, that money comes out of an ever-increasing record deficit that will further deprive our citizens of badly needed economic, educational and health necessities, now and for the foreseeable future.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:33 AM -

 
Gov Dean's Position on the Support of Veterans

For veterans, active duty military, and reserves please check out Gov. Dean's recently posted issue paper on empowering veterans. You have a choice in 2004 - make the right one. Study the issues regarding support of our military community, many of which have been highlighted on this blog. It's not too strong of a statement to say that the choice you make will likely be very crucial to the well-being of our best-in-the-world military forces, our standing in the world community, and to the issues of importance to you as veterans or veterans-to-be.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:13 AM -

 
Coffin Hide-and-Go Seek

Veterans, in case you missed this yesterday, I had to put a secong blog post on today. If you are wondering whether Mr. Bush places a higher priority on managing the news than on sick, wounded, or dead GIs, see the excerpt below and yesterday's post on the the insanity at Ft. Stewart.

Curtains Ordered for Media Coverage of Returning Coffins


By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, October 21, 2003; Page A23


Since the end of the Vietnam War, presidents have worried that their military actions would lose support once the public glimpsed the remains of U.S. soldiers arriving at air bases in flag-draped caskets.

To this problem, the Bush administration has found a simple solution: It has ended the public dissemination of such images by banning news coverage and photography of dead soldiers' homecomings on all military bases.

In March, on the eve of the Iraq war, a directive arrived from the Pentagon at U.S. military bases. "There will be no arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein [Germany] airbase or Dover [Del.] base, to include interim stops," the Defense Department said, referring to the major ports for the returning remains.

A Pentagon spokeswoman said the military-wide policy actually dates from about November 2000 -- the last days of the Clinton administration -- but it apparently went unheeded and unenforced, as images of caskets returning from the Afghanistan war appeared on television broadcasts and in newspapers until early this year. Though Dover Air Force Base, which has the military's largest mortuary, has had restrictions for 12 years, others "may not have been familiar with the policy," the spokeswoman said. This year, "we've really tried to enforce it."

President Bush's opponents say he is trying to keep the spotlight off the fatalities in Iraq. "This administration manipulates information and takes great care to manage events, and sometimes that goes too far," said Joe Lockhart, who as White House press secretary joined President Bill Clinton at several ceremonies for returning remains. "For them to sit there and make a political decision because this hurts them politically -- I'm outraged."

Pentagon officials deny that. Speaking on condition of anonymity, they said the policy covering the entire military followed a victory over a civil liberties court challenge to the restrictions at Dover and relieves all bases of the difficult logistics of assembling family members and deciding which troops should get which types of ceremonies.

One official said only individual graveside services, open to cameras at the discretion of relatives, give "the full context" of a soldier's sacrifice. "To do it at several stops along the way doesn't tell the full story and isn't representative," the official said.

A White House spokesman said Bush has not attended any memorials or funerals for soldiers killed in action during his presidency as his predecessors had done, although he has met with families of fallen soldiers and has marked the loss of soldiers in Memorial Day and Sept. 11, 2001, remembrances.

- posted by a Vet @ 11:40 AM -

 
Mr. Bush the Businessman -
Or, Guess Who is Getting the Big Contracts

Harvard Business School is unlikely to include this business case in their MBA program. Apparently, ideas like involving the stakeholders, collaboration, and teamwork are concepts foreign to Mr. Bush's way of doing business. Certain key phrases are highlighted for you business students out there, so that you can know what not to do when you go out into the real world.


Iraq's Businessmen Feel Left Out in the Cold
Wed October 22, 2003 01:07 AM ET

By Suleiman al-Khalidi
BAGHDAD (Reuters) -

Six months after the fall of Baghdad, much of the initial euphoria has evaporated, and though some things have improved, the pace of change is slower than expected.

Businessmen willing to swallow their national pride in the hope that the U.S.-led occupation would at least generate billions of dollars in work for Iraqis are increasingly disillusioned.

Iraqis complain that the U.S.-led authorities in Iraq are not learning fast enough how to deal with the country they invaded.

They say there is not enough reliance on local know-how, too many back-door deals and thinly-spread contracts.

Middlemen are thriving, but there is little access to U.S. contractors, and local businesses complain that local foreign firms are being favored.

"You will not find anyone more capitalist than I am," said Faisal al-Kedairy, chief executive of Dofar Pharmaceutical Industries… "All we are asking for is to be able to compete on a level playing field (with foreign firms)."

Mahmud al-Bunnia, the most senior member of the family involved in the business, said it was eager to expand its concerns, which range from dairy products to construction to engineering and banking.

"We have ambitions to build large complexes and projects and undertake major operations...but what's on offer is peanuts," Bunnia said.

Prominent Iraqi businessmen said Washington was riding roughshod over local interests in its effort to attract global business.

They said allowing access to foreign investors without providing safeguards for Iraqi businesses was a recipe for disaster and reneged on earlier promises of support.

Iraqis wanted the U.S. administration to limit foreign ownership in Iraqi concerns to 49 percent, something that has not happened. The only sector in which foreigners cannot own companies is natural resources, which in Iraq means oil.

Many Iraqis feel that the U.S.-backed moves to lift controls on foreign ownership in most sectors except oil leaves them at the mercy of Western firms and other highly-capitalized companies in the Gulf well placed to snap up undervalued assets.

They say Iraq's reconstruction can succeed only with strong Iraqi involvement.

"If the Iraqis themselves don't do the new Iraq, no great power will do the new Iraq…Iraqis have to be given a chance to rebuild their country."

SUBCONTRACTS INSUFFICIENT

For the medium to large firms that are working with U.S. contractors, small subcontracts to rehabilitate schools across the country are simply not enough.

They are waiting for lucrative multi-million dollar tenders to revamp many of the public buildings that were bombed or looted in the war to overthrow Saddam.

Businessmen angered by perceived U.S.-insensitivity say they are looking at a possible scenario where they would become little more than wage earners for their foreign masters.

"Let the Americans get the lion's share, but we aspire to become partners so that they can develop us -- but not by owning concerns 100 percent, with us ending up as mere workers for them.

"It's very difficult for the Iraqi to stomach this. It's like you have kicked out the Iraqi from his house without giving him anything in return."

Students, in case you are appalled at the way our business partner (Iraq) is being treated, remember, learning these methods may enable you to own a professional baseball team some day, or become President of the United States.

- posted by a Vet @ 8:32 AM -

 
No Excuse for This

Military Rushes Doctors to Assist Wounded Living in "Squalor" at Fort Stewart
Mark Benjamin
United Press International

October 21, 2003, Summary: Responding to news accounts of more than 600 wounded, ill, and injured US soldiers living in "squalor" in old training barracks at Fort Stewart, the US Department of Defense confirmed the situation. And DoD dispatched a team of physicians to investigate the situation and to care for the soldiers. Congress is also launching an investigation into how this could happen ...


Doctors, dollars rushed to Fort Stewart

Washington, DC (UPI) - The Army said Monday it is sending doctors to Fort Stewart, Georgia, to help hundreds of sick and injured soldiers, including Iraq veterans, who say they are waiting weeks and months for proper medical help.

Many of the Army Reserve and National Guard personnel in "medical hold" at the base are living in steamy cement training barracks that they say are unacceptable for sick and injured soldiers.

The Army said in its statement that it would spend money to improve those living conditions and is dispatching a team to look into the soldiers' complaints.

"The Army does acknowledge that medical hold challenges exist -- across the Army as well as Fort Stewart," according to the statement. The Army "is absolutely committed to taking care of our people."

At the Pentagon, Army Public Affairs Specialist Steven Stover said officials would try to use findings about the problems at Fort Stewart to improve conditions in the future.

"Is this happening? Yes, it is," said Stover. "What we learn from this incident is going to help the Army when we have other major units returning" from Operation Iraqi Freedom...

The soldiers estimate that around 40 percent of the nearly 600 personnel in medical hold were deployed to Iraq. Of those who went, many described clusters of strange ailments, like heart and lung problems, among previously healthy troops.

They said the Army has tried to refuse them benefits, claiming the injuries and illnesses were due to a "pre-existing condition," prior to military service, a charge the Army denied.

Spend money??? Look into??? Challenges??? Wrong responses. This isn't time for public affairs baloney that reeks of no sense of urgency. There's a big problem here with inattention to wounded and sick soldiers. This is simply unconscionable. Fix it now before large redeployments begin!

- posted by a Vet @ 8:34 AM -

 
Trouble Inside the Bush Clan

Apparently father and son don't see eye to eye, but this story borders on the surreal. Of all the people to receive the 2003 George Bush (Sr.) Award for Excellence in Public Service, the choice was so unexpected, even the news media was speechless! So, now in addition to leakers in the White House, we have an apparent significant defector in the family. Some comments follow the article:

BUSH SR. SENDS NOT-SO-SUBTLE MESSAGE WITH AWARD TO KENNEDY by Georgie Anne Geyer

WASHINGTON -- It's not as though Osama Bin Laden gave a Jihad Award to Ariel Sharon, or Donald Rumsfeld gave his Good Pal Award to Condoleezza Rice. It's not even as though Dick Cheney gave his Favorite Foreigners Citation to the French.

But the news from College Station, Texas, this week -- that the First Father, former President George H.W. Bush, has given his own most treasured award to Sen. Edward Kennedy -- is nearly as astonishing.

When it was announced (with amazingly little fanfare) that the pugnaciously anti-Iraq war Democrat Kennedy had been awarded the 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service, so many jaws dropped all over Washington that usually voluble politicians were only heard swallowing their real thoughts.

Since the current President Bush veered away from the real war against terrorism in Afghanistan and went adventuring in Iraq, much to his father's dismay, just about everybody close to Washington politics has known of the policy schism between father and son.

It was politically and philosophically obvious. But people around Father Bush, a coterie of traditional internationalist conservatives who protect him like a wolf mother does her cubs, would heatedly deny any family rift -- and nobody spoke publicly about it.
Now it's all out. Father Bush has done it in his own preferred nuanced way -- the way Establishment gentlemen operate -- but he has revealed the depth of his disagreement with his impetuously uninformed son.

And won't it be interesting to analyze the speeches citing Teddy, who is surely one of W's primary political nemeses, for his public service and principles at the Bush Library Center on the Texas A&M campus on Nov. 7? One can bet they will be subtle -- but also very clear.

The ideological rift between father and son has been growing ever since George W. began focusing on Iraq and, with that obsession, proposed "theories" of unilateralism (America needs room in the world) and pre-emption (kill even your perceived enemy before he kills you). But while family friends say Father Bush has made his disagreements known to his son, they clearly have not found fertile soil in this White House.

More curious, and in many ways depressing, is the fact that this President Bush has embarked upon a policy designed to counter, or even to wipe out, his father's entire political legacy.

The father lived his life in the service of moderate and intelligent internationalism. His manners were always meticulously courteous, as he wooed even critics overseas to see the American position. He was even-handed in the Middle East and thus brought the area to the verge of peace for the first time in history; he was capable of using force but preferred to do it supported by coalitions of friendly states, thus cementing international cooperation.

The son seems to have made posturing against his father's accomplishments and beliefs his life's work. W has given way to a radical right that abhors international coalitions and manners; he mocks the world and denies any need for its help. He has led the Middle East to the nadir of its hope and possibilities, and he has led the United States to a moment in history in which we face asymmetric warfare from one end of the globe to another. And above all, he has replaced his father's courtesy and good graces with an almost proud rudeness and scorn for others.

Why? I'll leave the question of "killing the father" to the psychiatric thinkers. Meanwhile, the tension between these two men reveals itself daily.

Nov. 7 will give us a chance to see how this tension, which is crucial to the public and political lives of all Americans, plays out. In the Bush Library announcement of the award to Teddy Kennedy, the spokesman praised the liberal senator as a man who "consistently and courageously fought for his principles," and as an "inspiration to all Americans."

You know what I wish (besides being able to read the president's mind)? I wish Father Bush would drop his polite reticence and tell us what he and the team of his presidency really think about what is happening in America today. I think, as responsible citizens, we deserve that.
COPYRIGHT 2003 UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE

Given the fact that Sen. Kennedy spent the last month railing against the son's actions in Iraq, especially last week, the timing is not only amazing, only two possibilities exist: the one suggested by Ms. Geyer above, or a colossal gaffe on the part of the father or his staff. Either way, the news can't be good for the administration, especially when you consider that Sen. Kennedy is voicing the concerns that most Americans now have regarding Iraq, including myself. By the way, Sen. Kennedy deserved the award.


- posted by a Vet @ 9:57 AM -

 
Crossing A Line

The issue I present today is a very personal one for me and many of you who are veterans or on active duty. The question presented by the following article is what role should your religious beliefs, or agnosticism for that matter, play in your decision making while on active duty. Personally, my beliefs played a strong role on how I tried to treat people while on active duty and in how I decided whether I believed something to be right or wrong, ethical or unethical. But those beliefs remained personal in the work environment unless someone asked me directly about them.

The U.S. military sets guidelines in this regard, and the expression of religious beliefs are, of course, allowed within the context of worship at base chapels or in the outside community. But, the distinguished battle veteran Lt. Gen Boykin has crossed the line professionally – not in what he believes (that’s a matter of personal faith) but in how he uses his beliefs as a military officer and as a highly visible representative of the U.S. government. You should make up your mind for yourself, but as for me, Gen. Boykin has frankly not only failed the professionalism test in this case, he has failed the tests of leadership, wisdom, and common sense. Military officers are not primarily trained in the art of international relations, so picking someone for such an important job as his, requires skill and discernment. This clearly did not happen. From the President’s perspective, Gen. Boykin may be the one most qualified senior officer to chase down Bin Laden. But Gen. Boykin doesn’t understand what virtually every other officer (and enlisted person) understands concerning the proper expression of religious beliefs while on active duty.

The story is presented completely as it appeared this morning in the L.A. Times:

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has assigned the task of tracking down and eliminating Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and other high-profile targets to an Army general who sees the war on terrorism as a clash between Judeo-Christian values and Satan.

Lt. Gen. William G. "Jerry" Boykin, the new deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence, is a much-decorated and twice-wounded veteran of covert military operations. From the bloody 1993 clash with Muslim warlords in Somalia chronicled in "Black Hawk Down" and the hunt for Colombian drug czar Pablo Escobar to the ill-fated attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran in 1980, Boykin was in the thick of things.

Yet the former commander and 13-year veteran of the Army's top-secret Delta Force is also an outspoken evangelical Christian who appeared in dress uniform and polished jump boots before a religious group in Oregon in June to declare that radical Islamists hated the United States "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian ... and the enemy is a guy named Satan."

Discussing the battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia, Boykin told another audience, "I knew my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."

"We in the army of God, in the house of God, kingdom of God have been raised for such a time as this," Boykin said last year.

On at least one occasion, in Sandy, Ore., in June, Boykin said of President Bush: "He's in the White House because God put him there."

Boykin's penchant for casting the war on terrorism in religious terms appears to be at odds with Bush and an administration that have labored to insist that the war on terrorism is not a religious conflict.

Although the Army has seldom if ever taken official action against officers for outspoken expressions of religious opinion, outside experts see remarks such as Boykin's as sending exactly the wrong message to the Arab and Islamic world.

In his public remarks, Boykin has also said that radical Muslims who resort to terrorism are not representative of the Islamic faith.

He has compared Islamic extremists to "hooded Christians" who terrorized blacks, Catholics, Jews and others from beneath the robes of the Ku Klux Klan.

Boykin was not available for comment and did not respond to written questions from the Los Angeles Times submitted to him Wednesday.

"The first lesson is to recognize that whatever we say here is heard there, particularly anything perceived to be hostile to their basic religion, and they don't forget it," said Stephen P. Cohen, a member of the special panel named to study policy in the Arab and Muslim world for the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy.

"The phrase 'Judeo-Christian' is a big mistake. It's basically the language of Bin Laden and his supporters," said Cohen, president of the Institute for Middle East Peace and Development in New York.

"They are constantly trying to create the impression that the Jews and Christians are getting together to beat up on Islam.... We have to be very careful that this doesn't become a clash between religions, a clash of civilizations."

Boykin's religious activities were first documented in detail by William N. Arkin, a former military intelligence analyst who writes on defense issues for The Times Opinion section.

Audio and videotapes of Boykin's appearances before religious groups over the last two years were obtained exclusively by NBC News, which reported on them Wednesday night on the "Nightly News with Tom Brokaw."

Arkin writes in an article on the op-ed page of today's Times that Boykin's appointment "is a frightening blunder at a time that there is widespread acknowledgment that America's position in the Islamic world has never been worse."

Boykin's promotion to lieutenant general and his appointment as deputy undersecretary of Defense for intelligence were confirmed by the Senate by voice vote in June.

An aide to the Senate Armed Services Committee said the appointment was not examined in detail.

Yet Boykin's explicitly Christian-evangelical language in public forums may become an issue now that he holds a high-level policy position in the Pentagon.

Officials at his level are often called upon to testify before Congress and appear in public forums.

Boykin's new job makes his role especially sensitive: He is charged with speeding up the flow of intelligence on terrorist leaders to combat teams in the field so that they can attack top-ranking terrorist leaders.

Since virtually all these leaders are Muslim, Boykin's words and actions are likely to draw special scrutiny in the Arab and Islamic world.

Bush, a born-again Christian, often uses religious language in his speeches, but he keeps references to God nonsectarian.

At one point, immediately after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the president said he wanted to lead a "crusade" against terrorism.

But he quickly retracted the word when told that, to Muslim ears, it recalled the medieval Christian crusaders' brutal invasions of Islamic nations.

In that context, Boykin's reference to the God of Islam as "an idol" may be perceived as particularly inflammatory.

The president has made a point of praising Islam as "a religion of peace." He has invited Muslim clerics to the White House for Ramadan dinners and has criticized evangelicals who called Islam a dangerous faith.

The issue is still a sore spot in the Muslim world.

Pollster John Zogby says that public opinion surveys throughout the Arab and Islamic world show strong negative reactions to any statement by a U.S. official that suggests a conflict between religions or cultures.

"To frame things in terms of good and evil, with the United States as good, is a nonstarter," Zogby said.

"It is exactly the wrong thing to do."

For the Army, the issue of officers expressing religious opinions publicly has been a sensitive problem for many years, according to a former head of the Army Judge Advocate General's office who is now retired but continues to serve in government as a civilian.

"The Army has struggled with this issue over the years. It gets really, really touchy because what you're talking about is freedom of expression," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

"What usually happens is that somebody has a quiet chat with the person," the retired general said.
- posted by a Vet @ 1:56 PM -

 
Rep. Nethercutt (R- WA) - You Need to be Censured and Removed from Office

Rep. George Nethercutt (R-Wash) said on October 13, 2003 ...
"The story of what we've done in the postwar period is remarkable... It is a better and more important story than losing a couple of soldiers every day."

.......unless that happens to be your son or daughter! Washington State: you voted this guy in. If he's this insensitive to the men and women putting their lives on the line - and their families, we don't need him in Congress any more.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:37 AM -

 
Stand By - This Could Be Your Next Secretary of State Speaking....

Robertson Thinks Twice About Going Nuclear

The Rev. Pat Robertson seems to have backed away from his suggestion of last week that the State Department should be nuked. Robertson was chatting last week with Joel Mowbray, author of a book assailing the department, and offered: "When you get through" the book, "you say, 'If I could just get a nuclear device inside Foggy Bottom, I think that's the answer.' "

The State Department, understandably, was not pleased. "I lack sufficient capabilities to express my disdain," spokesman Richard Boucher said. "I think the very idea, though, is despicable."

On Monday, Robertson, with Mowbray again on the show, pulled back from going nuclear, saying: "I want to issue a correction to the State Department. I mentioned the question of nuking the State Department," he said, noting that Mowbray did not use that term. Mowbray said, "It should be gutted," Robertson said. "So we've changed. We're not going to nuke it. We're going to gut it."

But it turns out this was not the first time that Robertson has suggested nuking the department. He did so in June when Mowbray was on the show.

"Well, it looks like Congress had better do something," Robertson said, "and maybe we need a very small nuke thrown off on Foggy Bottom to shake things up like Newt Gingrich wants to do." (Former House speaker Gingrich has pushed hard for overhauling State and its operations, but hasn't advocated vaporizing it.)
- posted by a Vet @ 11:06 AM -

 
President Bush Pays $8.5 Billion Bribe to Turkey to Fight Iraq

Another sign of a failed foreign policy acting out of what appears to be desperation to get troops from anybody with little regard to the long term impacts. The following article characterizes another attempt at bailing out the failure to plan for the aftermath of the war in Iraq, and the money grubbing motives of the Turks, our "allies":

by Eric Margolis
Toronto Sun
Posted 10/13/2003 9:44:00 PM

Summary: A few weeks ago, US Senator Ted Kennedy claimed President George Bush's invasion of Iraq was based on a "fraud." In addition, Kennedy said that Bush was bribing other nations to support the failing US occupation of Iraq. The US is paying a $8.5 billion to hire Turkish mercenaries and the US is threatening to cut off foreign aid to Turkey, thus driving their economy into ruin. The people of Turkey strongly oppose fighting Iraq ...

Turks Trade Troops for Hard US Cash

The Turks, it seems, will send troops into Iraq. When and how many is uncertain, but in a momentous decision, Turkey's parliament voted decisively to aid the U.S. military occupation.

Washington is delighted. Having run out of troops itself, the U.S. is arm-twisting and bribing all and sundry to send soldiers to Iraq. Not surprisingly, few nations are eager to risk their men in strife-torn Iraq, but Uncle Sam has a very powerful inducement: money and trade. Turkey shows just how loudly cash talks with near-bankrupt nations.

Turkey is an important military power. Its army of 402,000 men is NATO's second largest after the United States. Though Turkey's armed forces suffer from outdated arms and wobbly logistics, its soldiers are renowned for courage and tenacity.

Great warriors, yes, but, as Ottoman history shows, the Empire was hopeless when it came to money. Much of its commercial affairs were conducted for it by other peoples who keenly understood commerce.

Today, as usual, Turkey is in dire economic straits. Thanks to wild overspending and a defense budget too large for a nation of 67.6 million, Turkey's economy is on the rocks. Inflation is 30%, bank crises are endemic, corruption rampant and a powerful military-industrial complex has the economy in a stranglehold.

Worst of all, previous free-spending governments ran up a huge external debt of $118.3 billion US that requires crushing interest payments and all-too-frequent, heart-stopping repayment of large tranches of maturing debt. Turkey's unsustainable debt problem perfectly illustrates how nations with weak economies and large debt lose their independence and become beholden to foreign powers.

Turkey cannot repay the money it owes. But failure to do so would mean an Argentine-style collapse of the already shaky currency, bank and stock market failures, cut-offs of imports, notably oil (Turkey has none), and a host of other dire consequences. To keep its debt ball rolling, Turkey must keep borrowing from international lenders. Old loans are paid off by new loans in what amounts to a giant Ponzi scheme.

Enter Uncle Sam. The U.S. and the world financial agencies it controls, the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, keep lending and re-lending to Turkey. Each time Ankara suffers a new financial crisis, Washington rushes in to prop up its finances and government.

Last spring, when Washington was preparing for war, it demanded Ankara allow U.S. troops to invade Iraq from eastern Turkey. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan's new, Islamic-light government in Ankara - the first genuinely popular, freely elected government in memory - refused, in spite of intense pressure from the U.S. and the Turkish Army's too-powerful, rightist generals, a virtual government unto themselves. The refusal was wildly popular among Turks, but Uncle Sam soon began cutting off the flow of money and threatening restrictions on Turkish cotton exports to U.S. markets.

Eventually, this pressure and worsening finances forced Turkey's government to accede to U.S. demands over Iraq, in spite of strong opposition by 70% to 80% of the public.

Just weeks after Washington announced $8.5 billion in desperately needed new loans to Ankara, Turkey agreed to send troops to Iraq. Erdogan and his AKP had stood up to Washington, at least long enough to save national honour. Now it was time to take the American loans and stave off bankruptcy.

Money was the dominant but not sole reason for Turkey's decision to intervene in Iraq. After waging a 20-year war against Kurdish separatist PKK guerrillas, Ankara wishes to occupy Kurdish regions of northern Iraq to crush PKK activity there and monitor Iraq's two, U.S.-created Kurdish mini-states. Northern Iraq's vast oilfields remain the object of passionate, if discreet, Turkish desire. Today's Iraq was a part of the Ottoman Empire for 500 years until Imperial Britain grabbed the resource-rich region after World War I.

Almost lost in the clamour over Turkey's decision were angry chirpings from the U.S.-installed "ruling council" in Baghdad, which, for a figurehead regime, had the audacity to protest the dispatch of Turkish troops to Iraq. Many Iraqis fear once Turkish troops come, they may never go.

The de facto partition of Iraq, long predicted by this column, could be accelerating. Washington may decide to carve up the country into "Iraq utile," as France used to define Chad, and "Iraq inutile" - or useful and useless Iraq. Oil is in the north and southeast. Let the Turks and Kurds divvy up the north; the U.S. and Britain will control the bigger southeast fields; the oilless Sunni triangle, where resistance to U.S. occupation is fiercest, will be sealed off and left in isolation.

Most Turks bitterly oppose intervention in Iraq. But their politicians cannot face them and admit it's either rent out their troops as mercenaries - oops, "peacekeepers" - or watch the lights go out when they run out of imported fuel.

Either way, it's a hard choice for proud Turks, and one that will certainly generate even more anti-Americanism in a nation that used to love the United States.
- posted by a Vet @ 8:54 AM -

 
Reality (Sound) Bites (Cont.)

Re: the blog entry below, earlier today, you should add one more sound bite we expect to come out soon: "We've now given all hope up of ever finding Dick Cheney. Fortunately, he left us with a stack of reusable canned quotes that should last well into next year. I guess we'll have no choice but to replace him on the 2004 ticket if he never shows his face again."

However, Jon Stwart reported on the Daily Show that Cheney is far from giving up, "As Cheney told CNN, he has been 100 percent heart attack free since ascending to the vice presidency. He added, 'In fact, rather than giving me stress, being vice president has actually fueled my blackened soul, allowing me to gorge vampire-like on the bloody nectar of unlimited power.' I'm sorry that should have read 'I never felt better.'" —Jon Stewart
- posted by a Vet @ 1:27 PM -

 
Fading Image in a Flight Suit...

From Paul Krugman's latest column:

All this fuss about the rudeness of the Bush administration's critics is an attempt to preclude serious discussion of that administration's policies. For there is no way to be both honest and polite about what has happened in these past three years.

On the fiscal front, this administration has used deceptive accounting to ram through repeated long-run tax cuts in the face of mounting deficits. And it continues to push for more tax cuts, when even the most sober observers now talk starkly about the risk to our solvency. It's impolite to say that George W. Bush is the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

On the foreign policy front, this administration hyped the threat from Iraq, ignoring warnings from military professionals that a prolonged postwar occupation would tie down much of our Army and undermine our military readiness. (Joseph Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once . . . and Young," says that "we have perhaps the finest Army in history," but that "Donald H. Rumsfeld and his civilian aides have done just about everything they could to destroy that Army.") It's impolite to say that Mr. Bush has damaged our national security with his military adventurism, but it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Still, some would say that criticism should focus only on Mr. Bush's policies, not on his person. But no administration in memory has made paeans to the president's character — his "honor and integrity" — so central to its political strategy. Nor has any previous administration been so determined to portray the president as a hero, going so far as to pose him in line with the heads on Mount Rushmore, or arrange that landing on the aircraft carrier. Surely, then, Mr. Bush's critics have the right to point out that the life story of the man inside the flight suit isn't particularly heroic — that he has never taken a risk or made a sacrifice for the sake of his country, and that his business career is a story of murky deals and insider privilege.

In the months after 9/11, a shocked nation wanted to believe the best of its leader, and Mr. Bush was treated with reverence. But he abused the trust placed in him, pushing a partisan agenda that has left the nation weakened and divided. Yes, I know that's a rude thing to say. But it's also the truth.


- posted by a Vet @ 11:40 AM -

 
Reality (Sound) Bites

The Bush Administration on finding Osama Bin Laden in Central Asia:
"We're going to hunt them down one at a time...it doesn't matter where they
hide, as we work with our friends we will find them and bring them to justice."
- President George W. Bush, 11/22/02

The Bush Administration on finding Saddam Hussein in the Mideast:
"We are continuing the pursuit and it's a matter of time before [Saddam]
is found and brought to justice."
- White House spokesman McClellan, 9/17/03

The Bush Administration on finding the leaker in the close confines of the
White House:
"I don't know if we're going to find out the senior administration official.
I don't have any idea...This is a large administration, and there are a lot
of senior administration officials"
- President George W. Bush, 10/7/03

- posted by a Vet @ 10:53 AM -

 
Finally, Weapons of Mass Destruction (of a Sort) are Found!

Is Condi Gaslighting Rummy?
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON, Oct 09, 2003

It's easy to see why the Bush crowd is getting so tetchy.

The itch to ditch officials who fritter away the public trust is growing, as Arnold and his broom bear down on Sacramento.

And we know now that our first pre-emptive war was launched basically because Iraq had . . . a vial of Botox?

Just about the scariest thing the weapons hunter David Kay could come up with was a vial of live botulinum, hidden in the home of an Iraqi biological weapons scientist.

This has very dire implications for Beverly Hills and the East Side of Manhattan, areas awash in vials of Botox, the botulinum toxin that can either be turned into a deadly biological weapon or a pricey wrinkle smoother.

And it may have dire implications for the Pentagon and White House if Americans come to believe that their trust was betrayed when the president and his team spread the impressions that Saddam was about to blow us up and that he was behind the 9/11 attacks.

It doesn't help to have a former-NATO-commander-turned-presidential-contender running around telling the country that the Bush dream team is a bunch of dunces. Or a former-diplomat-turned-angry-husband-of-an-outed-spy running around telling the country that the Bush dream team is a bunch of backstabbing lawbreakers who are dead wrong on Iraq.

The administration that never let you see it sweat is sweating, as two of its control freaks openly tug over control. The president's foreign policy duenna and his grumpy grampy over at the Pentagon are suddenly mud wrestling.

Women who are discouraged at the ascension of Conan the Barbarian in Cal-ee-fornia can take heart. In this delicious gender-bender, Condoleezza Rice triumphs as the macho infighter, driving Rummy into a diva-like meltdown.

The trigger was Monday's coverage of the Iraq Stabilization Group (a.k.a. Fat Chance Group); the group is a desperate bid to get a grip on Baghdad before the campaign starts by transferring power for postwar Iraq from the Pentagon to the national security adviser's office inside the White House.

Condi used a trick she learned from Rummy: pre-emption. She outflanked the famous Washington infighter by talking about the new alignment to The New York Times before he had a chance to object.

It was the first time the chesty defense czar — who had tried to freeze out the softies at State, which the Pentagon sneeringly refers to as "the Department of Nice" — had been downgraded by the president and outmaneuvered by a colleague.

"And because he is a cantankerous egomaniac," one longtime Rummy watcher said, "he compounded his own problems by acknowledging it in public, further undermining his own stature."

President Bush clearly realizes that Mr. Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz have gotten him into a fine mess. He wants his trusted Mother Hen, as he calls Condi, the woman who probably spends as much time with him as Laura — weekends at Camp David, vacations at the ranch, workouts at the gym — to make it all better. This will be the first time Ms. Rice, a Soviet expert who has functioned mostly so far as First Chum, will have her reputation on the line.

Some Republicans worry that it's risky to move accountability for postwar Iraq closer to the Oval Office because then there's no one else to blame.

In a meeting with foreign reporters on Tuesday in Colorado Springs, Rummy made no effort to mask his displeasure, saying he had not been consulted, even though Condi said he had, and cattily referring to the "little committees" of the N.S.C. When a German broadcast reporter pressed the defense secretary, he hissed: "I said I don't know. Isn't that clear? You don't understand English?"

One of Rumsfeld's Rules is: "Avoid public spats. When a Department argues with other government agencies in the press, it reduces the President's options." Hmm.

Maybe Rummy hasn't brushed up lately on the Washington rulebook he wrote in the 1970's — after his stints as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff and secretary of defense. Otherwise, he might have recalled this Rumsfeld rule before he bullied the world and ripped up Iraq: "It is easier to get into something than to get out of it."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Chartered airplanes are leaving from Southern California soon. Don't miss out on this opportunity to help Iraq build up its tourist trade and its economy, and get a supply of Botox while you are at it! Bring your own flak vests...
- posted by a Vet @ 1:24 PM -

 
Whose Freedom - and Where?

OK, does anybody else see something a little wrong comparing parts of the following two stories from this morning's news? I've bolded some phrases for your consideration:

Story #1:

WASHINGTON, (Oct. 10) - Eager to please a key Florida constituency, President Bush is asking top aides to produce recommendations for achieving a transition to democracy in Cuba after 44 years of communist rule. A small group of advisers, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, are being asked to provide advice on hastening what the administration calls the "inevitable democratic transition in Cuba."

"The president will talk about ways in which we can keep up the pressure on the Castro regime," said one official, asking not to be identified. Scores of Bush supporters from Congress, the Miami community of Cuban exiles and other anti-Castro groups were to be briefed in advance of the official announcement.The administration has been signaling for weeks that new steps concerning Cuba were being planned.

Florida, a vote-rich swing state, is one of the states Bush has visited most since becoming president. The votes of Miami's Cuban-American community could be crucial in the 2004 presidential election.

The president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, took issue with the decision, saying it wasn't right to send the Cubans back to Castro's regime.
Powell has been trying to enlist other nations in efforts to bring democracy to a country that has not had a free election since Castro assumed power in 1959.

The head of Cuba's diplomatic mission here, Dagoberto Rodriguez, said Thursday that Bush should "stop acting like a lawless cowboy" and "start listening to the voices of the nations of the world."
10/10/03 03:11 EDT
Copyright 2003 The Associated Press.

Story #2:

Snoop Software Gains Power and Raises Privacy Concerns
By JOHN SCHWARTZ

Earlier this year, Rick Eaton did something unusual in the world of high technology: he made his product weaker. Mr. Eaton is the founder of TrueActive, which makes a computer program that buyers can install on a target computer and monitor everything that the machine's user does on the PC.

Spying with software has been around for several years but Mr. Eaton decided that one new feature in his program crossed a line between monitoring and snooping. That feature is called "silent deploy," which allows the buyer to place the program on someone else's computer secretly via e-mail, without having physical access to the machine. To Mr. Eaton, that constituted an invitation to install unethical and even illegal wiretaps. He made the change, he said, "so we could live with ourselves."

Privacy experts are not buying such arguments. Marc Rotenberg, who heads the Electronic Privacy Information Center in Washington, contended that selling software that can tap people's communications without their knowledge violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. "I don't think there's any question that they are violating the federal law," he said. The disclaimers, he said, "fail the straight-face test."

Federal officials note that federal laws on wiretapping make it illegal even to advertise illegal wiretap products — and a little-noted change to the law last year expanded its scope explicitly to include advertising on the Internet. Mr. Eaton's program has even been used by the F.B.I., with approval of the courts, to capture hackers.

The programs include "key loggers" that capture keystrokes, and can record what's onscreen, even turn on a computer's Webcam so that the user can sneak a peek at the target — and get the information and images back via the Internet. "You don't have to be an F.B.I. agent or a computer genius to use this stuff," said Richard Smith, a privacy and security expert who is concerned about the rise of the products. "You just point and click."






- posted by a Vet @ 9:23 AM -

 
Profiteering Unchecked - About that $87 Billion...

Published on Wednesday, October 8, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
Iraq and Corporate Patriotism: It's Time to Stop the War Profiteers
by Charlie Cray

Hundreds of Americans soldiers have made the ultimate sacrifice for a war that was sold to the American public through what is now clear were misleading assertions about an imminent threat from Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and ties to al Qaeda. Now American taxpayers are being asked to pay an additional $87 billion for the ongoing occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. As occupying powers, the U.S. and UK are obligated to provide for the humanitarian needs of the Iraqi people and the reconstruction of the country's infrastructure. But this doesn't mean that taxpayers should hand over a blank check with no strings attached.

There is strong reason to fear that the contracting bonanza will serve only to enrich the Bush administration's corporate cronies rather than the Iraqi people. As talks about privatizing Iraq's economy continue (before a constitutional government is established that would have the authority to make such decisions), recent news reports suggest that top Republican lobbyists like former FEMA director Joe Allbaugh and former House Appropriations Committee chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA) are lining up clients who stand to benefit. Rep. James Moran (D-VA) has complained that a company from his district was essentially told that "if they want the money they really have to go through Halliburton." If it's that bad for companies with connections to the Democrats, it's hard to imagine how much more difficult it must be for Iraqi engineers and contractors - who can't afford Allbaugh or Livingston's consulting fees -- to access the process.

Halliburton has so far racked up over $1.7 billion and stands to make hundreds of millions more (possibly billions) under a no-bid contract awarded by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. As Congressman Waxman (whose office has closely monitored the Halliburton handouts) put it, "the amount of money [earned by Halliburton] is quite staggering, far more than we were originally led to believe … it concerns me because often the privatization of government services ends up costing the taxpayers more money rather than less."

Democratic Senate leader Tom Daschle's has uncovered examples of items in the draft appropriations request that are reminiscent of Reagan-era Pentagon hammers and toilet seats, including $200,000 per person witness protection -- nearly 20 times cost of U.S. program -- and hand-held radio and satellite phones that cost an average $6,000 each.

Cost overruns and Cheney's ongoing financial ties to Halliburton are not the only reasons that Congress should hold hearings on war profiteering. The contracts have been regularly awarded to companies with a track record of corporate crime and excessive executive compensation. Enron and Arthur Anderson were immediately suspended from all federal contracts after their accounting fraud was revealed (and before they were convicted of any crimes), but everyone seems to have forgotten that the SEC is still investigating what went on at Halliburton while Cheney was CEO. And Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has yet to reply to Waxman's April letter asking for an explanation why the Pentagon is contracting with a company (Halliburton) that is apparently using a Cayman Islands subsidiary to conduct business in Iran, a member of the President's "axis of evil."

As members of Congress to take up the $87 billion Iraq appropriations request, they should continue to be on guard for corporate war profiteering and apply the following conditions to the contracts to ensure that taxpayers are protected:

1) Full Dislosure. End all no-bid contracts like the multi-billion dollar contract awarded to Halliburton before the start of the war. All companies bidding for contracts should meet rigorous standards of accountability, and should be required to submit their history of compliance with securities, labor, environmental and tax laws as part of any contract bid.

2) Ban Corporate Tax Dodgers From the Contracts. In 2002 the President said, "we ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem. I think American companies ought to pay taxes here and be good citizens." Companies that move their headquarters to offshore tax havens and otherwise use offshore subsidiaries to avoid paying their fair share of taxes should be ineligible for taxpayer-funded contracts. The IRS estimates that offshore tax scams cost the Treasury $70 billion per year - almost as much as the supplemental request.

3) Stop Excess War Profits: Rein in CEO Pay. Defenders of sky-high CEO pay often argue that corporate leaders bear tremendous responsibilities and must oversee complicated business activities. But many of the companies that have received Iraq reconstruction contracts award their top executives pay packages that are 30 to 175 times as much as a U.S. army general with 20 years experience ($145,000). For example, Lockheed Martin CEO Vance Coffman receives $4.1 million in salary and bonuses, plus more than $20 million in options grants; last year he made nearly 2,000 times the pay of an entry-level soldier. Congress should keep in mind President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's sentiment in the aftermath of WWII, when he said, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster."

4) No Contracts for Corporate Crooks. On the same day in May that the Pentagon awarded WorldCom/MCI a contract to provide wireless service in Baghdad, the SEC announced that it was penalizing the company for the largest accounting fraud in corporate history. WorldCom/MCI has sopped well over a billion dollars in taxpayer money through government contracts since the fraud was revealed, including a $17 million contract awarded by the House in July, just as several members of Congress were trying to block the company from doing business with the federal government. The situation became so embarrassing that the General Services Administrator finally announced at the end of July that MCI would be suspended from all government contracts. But we shouldn't have to wait that long for law-breaking companies to be barred from receiving taxpayer-funded contracts.

The additional reconstruction funds should not have to come from ordinary taxpayers, but should be raised from an excess profits tax on corporations benefiting from the war and post-war privatization in Iraq, and a restored tax on the wealthiest 1% of Americans. Anyone concerned about corporate war profiteering should let Congress and the media hear their concerns.

- posted by a Vet @ 10:29 AM -

 
The Bush Doctrine - It's Reached the Private Sector Too..

When the famous Converse sports shoe company could not keep it's latest basketball shoe financially solvent, the Nike empire saved the day. Thanks Nike for your preemptive attack, and what a name for the shoe: the "Loaded Weapon". Sure sets a great example for our kids, doesn't it?
- posted by a Vet @ 9:55 PM -

 
The Bush Doctrine (Cont.) - What are the Limits of "Preemption"?

Parts of the following article from a retired CIA Officer who also served in the Army, are provided without comment - none is needed.

October 2, 2003, Summary: President George Bush's war, built on a house of cards, is falling apart. Will the integrity and reputation of our great Nation survive these wounds inflicted by Bush?

Conscience Before Career

"Even though I'm a tranquil guy now at this stage of my life, I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." George H. W. Bush, 1999

What could have been going through the heads of senior White House officials when they decided to expose a CIA officer working under deep cover? Why would they want to blow the cover of Valerie Plame, wife of former United States Ambassador Joseph Wilson?

Was it another preemptive attack, which like the attack on Iraq, seemed to the White House a good idea at the time? It certainly fits that pattern, inasmuch as little thought seems to have been given to the implications, consequences and post-attack planning.

The objective was to create strong disincentive for those who might be tempted to follow the courageous example set by Joseph Wilson in citing the president's own words to show that our country went to war on a lie.

Administration spin doctors, having been able to dig up nothing worse, are calling Ambassador Wilson a "Clinton holdover," but no one was better qualified to investigate reports that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for Baghdad's putative nuclear weapons program. Wilson served with high distinction as President George H. W. Bush's acting ambassador in Iraq during the first Gulf war and also served many years in Africa, including Niger.

After being sent to Niger in early 2002 at the behest of the Vice President Dick Cheney's office, he reported back that the story was false on its face” a finding reinforced when it was later learned that the report was based on forged documents.

When, despite all this, President Bush used this canard in his state-of-the-union address on January 28, 2003, Wilson faced a choice not unfamiliar to just-retired government officials. He could sit comfortably and smirk over brandy with friends in Georgetown parlors, or he could speak truth to power.

Conscience won. In a New York Times article on July 6, Wilson blew the whistle on the Iraq-Niger hoax, adding that "some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

With the Times article, Wilson threw down the gauntlet. At the same time, he permitted himself the comment to Washington Post reporters that the Iraq-Niger hoax "begs the question as to what else they are lying about."

And so, White House Mafiosi decided to retaliate against the Wilsons in order to issue a clear warning that those who might be thinking of following the ambassador's example should think twice” that they can expect to pay a high price for turning state's evidence, so to speak. At least one reporter was explicitly told that wives are "fair game."

So far the intimidation has worked. But a test case is waiting in the wings.

Alan Foley, the CIA official in charge of analysis on weapons of mass destruction, has announced his retirement. His name hit the news recently when it was learned that Foley tried, unsuccessfully, to prevent the bogus report on Iraq-Niger from finding its way into the president's state-of-the-union speech. Foley's credibility was immediately attacked by the White House” which may come to regret having done so.

I have worked with Alan Foley. He is cut of the same cloth as Ambassador Wilson. I am betting that the White House's latest preemptive strike will not deter Foley and other intelligence officials able to put conscience and integrity before career from following Wilson's example.

Things are likely to get even more interesting.

Ray McGovern is an Army veteran as well as a 27-year veteran of the CIA. He is a co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. He is currently Co-Director of the Servant Leadership School, an inner-city outreach ministry in Washington, DC.


- posted by a Vet @ 10:29 AM -

 
So, This Investigation Will Be "Unbiased"?

Bush Says Leaker May Not Be Found in CIA-Iraq Probe
Tue October 07, 2003 01:23 PM ET

By Randall Mikkelsen
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Tuesday ruled out three senior aides as possible sources for a leak disclosing the name of an undercover CIA operative and President Bush said the case may never be resolved.

And how has the White House been able to rule out some people when they are not supposed to be involved in this investigation? Read on.

"I have no idea whether we'll find out who the leaker is," Bush told reporters after he met with his Cabinet. "I'd like to. I want to know the truth."

As Jack Nicholson said, "You want the Truth?....

Spokesman Scott McClellan said senior Bush political aide Karl Rove, vice presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby and National Security Council senior director Elliott Abrams had each denied being the source of the leak. McClellan said he talked to each of the three officials in response to news reports that they may have been involved in disclosing the name of the operative, whose diplomat husband had publicly opposed Bush on a key area of his Iraq policy.

Let's see. The White House said it would stay out of this investigation. But Spokesman McClellan apparently didn't hear his boss - instead he personally asked Rove, Libby, and Abrams whether they were involved. Of course they said "No" and therefore we should take McClellan's "investigation" as being the truth. Whether it is or not, the White House barely waited 48 hours before they stuck their noses into the "unbiased" investigation being conducted by the Justice Dept. Mr. Bush has personally absolved the three before the Justice Dept. has had the chance to talk with them - will they be able to do so?

Bush said he did not know whether a federal criminal investigation, begun after a request by the CIA, would find who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to a number of different media outlets in Washington.

Translated: "Don't be surprised if the investigation comes up empty - and I'll do everything I can to make sure it does."

"I've instructed this staff of mine to cooperate fully with the investigators, full disclosure," he said. But he said Washington was "full of people who like to leak information," and the media was practiced at protecting sources.

Mr. Bush is awfully angry at all these "leakers" in Washington, but he doesn't say why. He said it's happened a lot before from all three branches of the government and the media. And the media is singled out as protecting sources. So the implication is that he is more upset with the fact that ANY information damaging to his administration gets out, than he is, for example, about the safety of our intelligence operatives. I see lots of statements that he is going to stop the leaks, but virtually nothing on better protecting these people who put their lives on the line for this country.


- posted by a Vet @ 11:33 AM -

 
Destabilizing the Instability? Or, Why I Won't be Voting for Mr Bush, (Part III)


Let's just ask some questions and make a few comments about the following news report:

White House to Overhaul Iraq and Afghan Missions
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 5 — The White House has ordered a major reorganization of American efforts to quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries, according to senior administration officials.

The new effort includes the creation of an "Iraq Stabilization Group," which will be run by the national security advisor, Condoleezza Rice. The decision to create the new group, five months after Mr. Bush declared the end of active combat in Iraq, appears to be part of an effort to assert more direct White House control over how Washington coordinates its efforts to fight terrorism, develop political structures and encourage economic development in the two countries.

"More direct control" - So the President has not had control of what was going on to this point? "New Group" - Looks like more of a rearranging of the deck chairs on the Titanic. No new personalities are involved, just a different arrangement of the Executive Dept. This sort of reminds me of how Taco Bell does business: shuffling the same dozen or so ingredients every once in a while to come up with a "new" entree. But any attempt at humor aside, since when does an "Advisor" become a director of State Dept, DoD, and other Cabinet level agencies?

It comes at a time when surveys show Americans are less confident of Mr. Bush's foreign policy skills than at any time since the terrorist attacks two years ago. At the same time, Congress is using President Bush's request for $87 billion to question the administration's failure to anticipate the violence in Iraq and the obstacles to reconstruction.

$87 billion? Have you noticed that since this figure was stated by the President, $67 billion of it, designated for "military forces in Iraq and Afghanistan" has gone unquestioned because it's "for the troops. " While I commend the media for their "patriotism", I for one would like to know exactly how that $67 billion will be used. Given the fact that, according to Jonathan Turley (Sunday L.A. Times), a lot of the equipment given to our troops is outdated or unsafe. G.I.s are going on the Internet or asking for help from home to get everything from flak vests to GPS locators. And, "The greatest shortage ... appears to be in National Guard and Reserve units". According to the Gen Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, these troops will not have adequate physical protective gear "until December" as reported by Hurley. Let's see an accounting of the whole $87 billion in layman's language. How much of it will go to conflict-of-interest contractors like Halliburton? Exactly how will our troops be supported by the $67 billion piece of that?

"This puts accountability right into the White House," a senior administration official said. The reorganization was described in a confidential memorandum that Ms. Rice sent Thursday to Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, and the director of central intelligence, George J. Tenet.

"This puts accountability right into the White House,". Excuse me, accountability has ALWAYS been with the White House - are "senior administrationn officials" now just realizing it? Funny how most of the 300 million rest of us in the country already knew that.

Asked about the memorandum on Sunday, Ms. Rice called it "a recognition by everyone that we are in a different phase now." A new phase of "We don't know what we are doing or how to proceed from here."

She said it was devised by herself, Vice President Dick Cheney, Mr. Powell and Mr. Rumsfeld in response to discussions she held with Mr. Bush at his ranch in late August. Oh yeah, this is a "new" group alright.

The creation of the group, according to several administration officials, grew out of Mr. Bush's frustration at the setbacks in Iraq and the absence of more visible progress in Afghanistan, at a moment when remnants of the Taliban appear to be newly active.

"Mr. Bush's frustration at the setbacks in Iraq and the absence of more visible progress ". Oh, he's frustrated. Guess what, most of the country is now past "frustrated" according to the latest polls.

"The president knows his legacy, and maybe his re-election, depends on getting this right," another administration official said. "This is as close as anyone will come to acknowledging that it's not working."

"...maybe his re-election". There's no "maybe" about it. It's time for a change.

Inside the State Department and in some offices in the White House, the decision to create the stabilization group has been interpreted as a direct effort to diminish the authority of the Pentagon and Mr. Rumsfeld in the next phase of the occupation.

Have you ever read James Michener's Centennial? In the badlands of Colorado he describes a horrifying sight sometimes observed by settlers in the Old West - a ball of nasty entwined rattlesnakes rolling along - something nobody wanted to get nearer to investigate. It's time we unraveled this ball of snakes in the 2004 election.
- posted by a Vet @ 11:02 AM -

 
The Bush Doctrine - A Failure of Strategic Planning, and A Failure of Moral Leadership - Part II

Your current National Defense Strategy, as developed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, contains these five elements, according to the Feb 2003 issue of Air Force Magazine:
1. Defend the Homeland
2. Deter Aggression in four critical theaters (Europe, Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral, and Middle East/Southwest Asia)
3. Swiftly defeat aggression in any two theaters at the same time
4. Preserve the option for one major counteroffensive to occupy an aggressor's capital or replace his regime
5. Conduct a limited number of smaller-scale emergencies

The article states: The President has set a new course in national security thinking. The question is whether he can properly fund it.. But this is a secondary question, is it not? The first question that should be asked: "Is this course in the best interests of our nation?" The answer is no!

Now no right thinking person would deny that we need to root out the terrorists responsible for 9/11 and do our best at preventing future terrorist acts from being perpetrated on us or our allies.

The problem increasingly that I have with this administration is this: what actions are justified to carry out the War on Terrorism? There is now no apparent sense of when the line is being crossed with regard to who we are as a nation, or when individual rights are being shredded in the name of fighting terrorism.

We need reason, leadership, and freedom to be retrieved from the garbage dump of this administration. The "ends justify the means" form of leadership, that we have now in Washington, is steadily dismantling our moral standing and influence as a nation - in spite of the fact that moral reasons are being used to justify our actions - and our military is being used to carry them out.

Let's start with "regime change" and it's implications. Now the standard cliche being repeated across the political spectrum - which I agree with - is "good riddance to Saddam- wherever he is."

But, this President has changed a national determination, debated often during the Cold War, that rejected the concept of assassinating foreign leaders - and call it what you want, regime change includes assassination of leadership of another country. Does any other nation in the world openly now advocate this idea? They are few and far between, if any exist - at least not openly. Do you want this to be a key part of our stated foreign policy and national strategy? Or to have our military forces used for this purpose now and in the future?

Now, for those of you who are legally inclined, what about the international law implications for such a policy? International law depends on agreements between nations in order for the general well-being of all to be carried out (e.g. the Geneva Conventions, the United Nations etc.). Is "regime change" to be a new agreed upon concept among nations? Hardly.

What about an Osama Bin Laden? The distinction between leaders of countries and rogue terrorists is an important one, and we have to go after someone like Bin Laden, whom we know is responsible for 9/11. And in a case like this, we have international cooperation (for the most part). But with Iraq we did not, because it was built on the personal agendas and false evidence presented by administration officials, not the actual threat of aggression or real aggression, as specified, ironically, in the Bush Doctrine stated above.

Wait a minute, you say, things are different now with the threat of WMDs and terrorism being exported around the world. What if a nation's leader acts as a rogue terrorist like an Osama Bin Laden? Didn't we go after Libya's Kaddafi? Yes, we did, and we had proof of this terrorism which Libya eventually admitted to.

But will regime change now be a policy of first resort - or only resorted to when no other possibility exists to prevent disaster? We need a national debate on this issue before the 2004 election - and not just accept the idea of regime change as part of our national policy from now on.





- posted by a Vet @ 12:36 PM -