TENNESSEE TORCH BEARER

Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal: Jack Raykovitz and Second Mile

2012-01-08T06:38:00.000-05:00

Second Mile Sandusky Sex Scandal: Jack Raykovitz and Second Mile

Grand Jury and Media Manufactured

2011-12-31T23:27:00.000-05:00

Grand Jury and Media Manufactured

2011-12-31T23:25:00.000-05:00

The Rhythm of Reasonable Doubt

1998 Investigation

2011-12-24T10:41:00.000-05:00

Perjury Hearing McQueary Transcript

2011-12-24T07:07:00.002-05:00

PERJURY HEARING TWITTER TESTIMONY

2011-12-18T10:56:00.002-05:00

MinkNate:
McQ could tell there was more than one shower running.

roxburynews:
Could you tell from the sound of showers, how many showers were on? Yes, more than one, McQuery responds.

KevinHornePSU:
When McQueary heard sexual noises but hadn't yet seen Sandusky, he felt embarassed and tried to leave quickly.

audsnyder4:
McQueary said he was embarrassed and wondered if he should've been in there. Says its fair to say he was curious about what was going on

roxburynews:
McQuery says that based on slapping sounds, he had already contrived a visual of what was happening, was embarrassed. Then he glanced.

andrewmcgill:
Could not see boy's expression. Could not see Sandusky's face well.
[via Twitter]

10:15

roxburynews:
McQuery asked if he saw any expression on the boys face? "No, not at that time." #psu

Capitol_Ideas:
Did not do anything to get their attention. I didn't know what to think.

andrewmcgill:
"That first look through the mirror, I didn't know what to think."

10:16

Capitol_Ideas:
McQ went back to his locker to outshines in. S locker. Looked again.

audsnyder4:
McQueary said "I did not alert them with my voice but I slammed my locker door shut."

Capitol_Ideas:
How many seconds from second look at shower to the 3d? 4-5 seconds, he says.
[

andrewmcgill:
McQueary was in locker room for 45 seconds.

roxburynews:
How long were you in locker room area? McQuery: "No longer than a minute, I'd say 45seconds."

KevinHornePSU:
McQueary says he slammed his locker room door shut intentionally so that Sandusky would know of his presence.

MinkNate:
McQ was in locker room for 45 seconds total, he said.

Capitol_Ideas:
Was Sandusky shocked when he saw you? says expression was "somewhat blank."

roxburynews:
You did not confront Sandusky at all? McQuery, "no." They all looked at one another. McQuery says Sandusky's expression was "blank."

andrewmcgill:
McQueary never confronted Sandusky, even years later.

OnwardState:
McQueary says he never once confronted Sandusky about that night, that night or any time in the future.

audsnyder4:
When Sandusky saw McQueary he said jerry had a "somewhat blank" expression. McQueary said he never confronted Jerry

roxburynews:
Mike McQuery says that he has never confronted Jerry Sandusky about what he saw in that shower on March 1, 2002

OnwardState:
McQueary "I did not see insertion or penetration. It was very clear there was intercourse going on. But I can not say 100% sure"

roxburynews:
McQuery: "I did not see insertion or penetration. I did not hear verbiage or protest." Says he saw positions, heard sounds. Sexual.

andrewmcgill:
But can't say he's "1,000%" sure. Or even 100%.

KevinHornePSU:
McQueary says the meeting with Paterno only lasted 10 minutes, but he never used the words "rape" or "intercourse."

audsnyder4:
"I didnt see insertion or penetration... I testify that I can not tell you 1000 percent sure

Capitol_Ideas:
Did you see Sandusky's genitals touching the boy. His body was blocking that area. But they "were as close as you can be."

annaorso:
Robert: Were they touching each other's bodies? McQueary: "They were as close as they good be."

Capitol_Ideas:
In my mind, I don't go to Coach Paterno and go into great deal on sexual acts.

andrewmcgill:
"I don't go to Coach Paterno and go through great details of sexual acts."

roxburynews:
Defense proclaims that McQuery has never used the word "rape" because he can't say that's what actually happened.

OnwardState:
"In my mind, you don't go to Coach Paterno and describe in detail horrible sexual acts."

Capitol_Ideas:
You went to Paterno in lieu of police? Did you go later? No I did not.

KevinHornePSU:
McQueary says he is not 1000 (sic) percent that insertion had occured, but he is pretty certain. Keeps using the word "extremely sexual."

roxburynews:
McQuery holds firm to his account that while he didn't see "genitals touching" he says "they were as close as you can be."

andrewmcgill:
Told Paterno he heard slapping sounds. He's sure he used the word "fondling."

MinkNate:
McQ is sure he used "fondling" not sure about "in nature"

Capitol_Ideas:
Did you see any type of fondling by Sandusky, with his hands on boy.

Capitol_Ideas:
I cannot say I saw Sandusky's hands on the boy. fondling is touching someone in a sexual way.

KevinHornePSU:
McQueary says he used the word "fondling" with Paterno

andrewmcgill:
Didn't see any contact of genitals in shower. Bodies were blocking view, McQueary said.

OnwardState:
McQueary says he did use the word "fondling" with Paterno. #PSUCharges

audsnyder4:
McQueary said he used the word fondling but couldn't see Jerry's hands on a boy's genitals. McQ gives a definition of fondling

roxburynews:
Defense atty drills McQuery about going to Paterno over police & what he told Paterno. McQuery states he told Paterno of sexual act.

Capitol_Ideas:
Mirror captured from waist and above, probably four feet wide.

andrewmcgill:
Didn't use word "intercourse" with father. But he knew what happened in that shower, McQueary said.

roxburynews:
Only seeing Defense atty Farrell from behind--narrow, glasses wearing man w/incredibly grisly, deepish voice. Resonating in Courtroom. #psu

roxburynews:
Farrell questions McQuery about what he saw in shower. Did you think it was a crime? Yes. But no police call.

Capitol_Ideas:
Did you see Sandusky in shower after that? no. Saw him in Lasch? yes

annaorso:
"I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy. He was not bent over" - McQueary

Capitol_Ideas:
Was the boy bent over or standing up? Standing up.

MinkNate:
I saw a lot of the boy but not all of the boy. He was not bent over.

audsnyder4:
The boy was in an upright position. He can't tell color of boy's hair beause his hair was wet

roxburynews:
McQuery first glances were in a mirror over the sink, from waist up. Saw Sandusky's "whole back side."

MinkNate:
Boy's head was up to pectoral muscle, McQ says

Capitol_Ideas:
McQ: For accurate height, I'd need a tape measure"

annaorso:
Farrell just clapped his hands to demonstrate slapping, sexual sounds. McQueary affirmed that is what it sounded like.

roxburynews:
Defense atty Farrell talks "slapping sounds." Like this--and slaps his hands together 3 times, rhythmic. "You got it," McQuery says

Capitol_Ideas:
MCQ I didn't sit there and stare.

andrewmcgill:
McQueary can't remember if Sandusky had an erection. "I didn't look down there."

Capitol_Ideas:
In my opinion, he was prepubescent. In response to q about whether he saw pubic hair.

MinkNate:
McQ could not tell if Jerry had an erection. "I don't look or stare down there."

audsnyder4:
Doesn’t know if Sandusky had an erection. “I don’t know. I don’t look and stare down there.”

Capitol_Ideas:
McQ says he did not see pain on the boys face"

KevinHornePSU:
Graphic details like "did Sandusky have an erect penis" or "did the boy have pubic hair." He can't recall much from quick glance 8 years ago

andrewmcgill:
_Ideas: McQ says he did not see pain on the boys face"

Capitol_Ideas:
Q: and you didn't call the police? I did not call the police.

roxburynews:
Did Sandusky have an erection? Pause. "I didn't look down there." Pain on the boy's face? McQuery says he didn't see any.

audsnyder4:
McQueary "yes, they were separated and he was still with Mr. Sandusky when I left." boy was still in shower but about 4 ft apart from jerry

2011-12-17T02:25:00.001-05:00

2011-12-16T07:37:00.000-05:00

2011-12-15T20:39:00.000-05:00

PSU Locker Room

2011-12-14T18:36:00.002-05:00

2010-04-04T23:40:00.000-04:00

January 15 and May 28 of 1970 in Knoxville Tennessee, two days that altered the course of a life. One through no fault of my own and the other by my own design as a result of the first.

While riding my bicycle I listen to Audible books. It allows me to keep up with the backlog of things I desire to read and passes the time. Imagine my surprise last month as I listened to Rick Perlstein's NIXONLAND and heard my name coming through the headphones. I almost fell off the bike.
Hearing Perlstein reference an event from forty years in my past got me to thinking about events that shaped and changed my life so I began to do some research to see what I could find to share about the experience.

If you have any interest in the trials of a liberal Democrat born into a Republican stronghold follow me below the fold and see what I produced for you as a result of Mr Perlstein's prodding. A lot of work went into this and there is a lot here. I only hope I've done justice to two truly remarkable events in a truly remarkable time. Thank you for reading.

In order to understand the impact of this place you need to know a bit about Knoxville politics and history. Knoxville is the urban center of the Second Congressional District of Tennessee. This District had never seen a Democrat in that office. In 60 years of my 64 year lifespan the office has been held by two families. Howard Baker Sr served from 1950 until his death when his wife Irene served out his term in 1965, John Duncan Sr from 65 to 88 and his son John Duncan Jr from 1988 until the present. Knoxville is the capitol of conservative Republican East Tennessee and home to the University of Tennessee where these events took place.
2 events in early 1970 resulted in a radical change to the course of my life at age 24. - the first was marked by my designation as the KNOXVILLE 22nd and the 2nd was a visit to the UT Campus by Richard Nixon at the invitation of the Reverend Billy Graham.
This week on FACEBOOK a friend posted pictures of the Jan 15, 1970 police riot that took place outside the Administration Building on the famous UT Hill. In the picture below a crowd is gathered on the west side of Ayers Hall observing the action in front of the Austin Peay administration building across the street. The guy with a raised hand below the red line is me.

Evidently observing a demonstration and raising one's hand as seen in the picture above is enough to merit indictment on the FELONY charge of INCITING TO RIOT in Republican East Tennessee.

Prior to these two early 1970 events I had been a mainstream college Democrat participating in campus politics of the kind that elected student body & class Presidents and got fraternity brothers in positions like Homecoming Chairman and CARNICUS advisory committee. As Freshman Class President I even organized a "Support the Troops" rally in front of the Student Center.

HOW I BECAME THE KNOXVILLE 22ND

In early February 1970 I got a visit from my father's law partner at my apartment on the UT Campus. It came as quite a surprise. Jim Jones was a young lawyer in Dad's law firm who said he was sent because my father thought he could 'relate' to me better. His message was that I had been indicted by a grand jury on the Felony charge of INCITING A RIOT for my participation in a demonstration on January 15th. To say I was shocked is considerable understatement and this is why.
I had traveled to Miami with my younger brother's band over the Christmas and New Year's holiday to assist the band as a manager/sound mixer. My brother and I returned to Knoxville in early January and I decided to enroll at UT to finish up a couple of courses required to complete my degree even though I had truly been lucky in the first draw of the new draft lottery in December. For the first time in years I was not required to attend school to avoid the draft. But on Jan 15 I went up to the Hill to register for classes and there encountered a relatively small group of students listening to speeches by guys I later came to know as Peter Kami, Gus Hadorn, and Carroll Bible. They were protesting the decision by the student faculty selection committee to name Dr Edward J. Boling as the next UT President.
I had known Dr Boling quite well for some time because I worked for him as the student in charge of the Alumni Giving program and my family was close friends with the Boling family. I understood that the students and some faculty were upset with the choice because they had been named to the selection committee and they wanted an academic person to be President. Boling was a development person who mainly raised money and helped build the physical part of the university. Over their specific objections Boling was named making their participation on a selection committee a sham.
The speeches were not too exciting until Peter Kami an anemic looking guy with a Brazilian accent and wire rimmed granny glasses perched on his nose challenged Dr. Boling to an arm wrestling match for the office of President. It was funny because Peter's arm was pencil like and his lack of imposing physical attributes was quite apparent. Few would have bet on him prevailing in such a contest. This detail should show you that the issue involved in this small protest was rather minor and not emotionally charged like the war or civil rights. There was no reason it should have resulted in arrests and serious disruption to several lives.
The small group grew smaller and weary as they began to drift away so a long haired fellow jumped on the stump and suggested that the participants enter the admin building and "gum up the works" by standing in the Drop and Add lines. This suggestion failed miserably in rallying the troops and they continued to drift toward the stairs leading down the Hill.

Then two amazing things conspired to alter personal histories:

First the bells rang marking an end to that period of classes and several hundred students poured from nearby classroom buildings causing a temporary huge increase of people in the area, and 2) there appeared on the Hill a phalanx of UT Campus Police in full riot gear - White storm trooper helmets, clear acrylic shields, and large riot batons. The 30 men marched in a V formation toward the group at the administration building from the south with shield and helmets glistening in the bright Winter sun. What the speeches failed to do - inspire the interest of the students - the storm troopers managed in an instant. Now the students were very interested although only a few had any idea what the fuss was all about.

Over the next 30 minutes about 30 of the students gathered at the door to the admin building demanding to be admitted and a few hundred more stood around waiting to see what would happen next. An announcement over a loudspeaker demanding everyone clear the area was met with derision as students insisted they had the right to free assembly. A couple of the guys nearest the door were pushed an a single diamond shaped leaded pane of glass in a window broke. The troops formed a semicircle around the walkway and front door but people came and went in and out of that line with little resistance. Eventually an ultimatum was issued and a deadline set to clear the area by then "or else" and we got to wait and watch the clock tick down.

When the appointed time was reached the front doors to the administration building opened and out poured some 100 Knoxville Police in full riot gear with gas masks and dogs. We now had over 130 police for around 30 student demonstrators and maybe 300 observers. The cops grabbed 15 or 20 of the closest people and everyone else headed off the hill in a hurry. Columbia? Tennessee is not.

While I was on the Hill that Jan afternoon I spoke to several fraternity brothers and a number of other students I knew. I had been President of Phi Sigma Kappa Fraternity, An elected representative from the liberal arts college in the student government, a member of the student tribunal, and President of the Freshman Class during the previous 5 years. In 1968 I had been selected as a national student field secretary for my Fraternity and had then gone to the Law School for one year before deciding that law was not for me. I suppose I might qualify for the BMOC (big man on campus) designation and I knew many of the students who were in the area while being a truly ambivalent and objective observer who was not a participant.

My year working for the fraternity had taken me to UC Berkeley and Stanford in the west where student activists were prevalent and relatively powerful. I had been to universities in New York, Pennsylvania, and New England in the East and the students were quite active ways seldom seen in the South. One thing I knew beyond all doubt was that there was little hope any similar student activism would thrive at the University of Tennessee.

I really was shocked at the police response. What were 100 city police officers in riot gear doing inside the administration building? I thought for certain they had to be there prior to the start of the gathering. It would have been nearly impossible for them to arrive later because there was no way inside that would not have revealed their entry to some students in the crowd. Why would the administration decide on such a massive police response to such a small gathering of students making speeches about their discontent with the selection of a President? There was never any credible threat to the security of the administration building. The 30 Campus police could easily handle that small part of the 'crowd' that might try to force their way inside.

In the days that followed the event I began to spend some time trying to help raise money for the defense of those students who had been arrested. Among them were two fraternity brothers who also had nothing to do with the demonstration. They like me had watched the events out of curiosity. One of them is now a staunch Republican - a stance I find difficult to believe given his experience. The other passed away some time ago. Both were mild mannered southern guys who definitely did not fit the "radical" mode or mindset. Both were shocked and rather embarrassed by their arrests. All of the then KNOXVILLE 21 were charged with FELONY "INCITING TO RIOT" for an event that bore no earthly resemblance to a riot even after the UT cops made their dramatic entrance or the mass of KPD officers poured out of the administration building. The extent of any 'damage' was the small pane of window glass a perhaps a trampled shrub.

BUT here it was a few weeks later and I was being driven downtown and booked as the 22nd person arrested for the events of Jan 15. The question is why?
The answer is simple.
Knoxville Tennessee as a part of the Second Congressional District that never had a Democrat in the seat was solidly Republican until 1948 when my father became County Judge(equivalent of Mayor of the City) to fill out the last two years of his predecessor who resigned to become Mayor of Knoxville. Dad was then elected to two full 8 year terms in 1950 and 1958 serving for 20 years and building a bit of momentum for Democrats. He had made one run for the Congressional seat in 1956 coming closer than any Democrat in history in a race against Howard Baker Sr.
The District Attorney of Knox County was a staunch Republican. The picture you see shows that I was present on the hill that day and that is all they required to get an indictment. Their logic was clear - indict the Judge's son and harm the Democrats politically.

Eventually most of the charges were reduced from felonies to the misdemeanor of Obstructing the Entrance to a Public Doorway on every participant except Peter Kami the frail Brazilian who challenged Ed Boling to an arm wrestling match. Poor Peter was forced to flea the country over this event His life was put in peril over a harmless bit of theater because he dared to register his protest and speak his mind here at the largest University in the South. Since Peter was foreign he fit the description 'outside agitator' and his last name could rhyme with 'COMMIE'. Wrong name, wrong place, and wrong time Peter. We don't treat our foreign guests well here Peter, particularly if they have the gall to think our freedoms apply to them.
I have little to complain about because I'm still here and I didn't even pay the $25 fine imposed for my non-infraction. But the events of Jan 1970 made me a radical in a land where 'freedom of speech and assembly' are empty and hollow terms even on the campus of a University. The FEAR and PARANOIA of local Republicans shown in their massing of 100 cops to quell a small protest rally is in a large part responsible for what happened in the 70's all over the country. The high minded idea of FREEDOM wasn't really enjoyed in AMERICA when REPUBLICANS are in control.

As a result of that arrest my Spring quarter at UT involved a lot of fund raising for defense of the KNOXVILLE 22 - in the time of the Catonsville 9 and the Chicago 7 we had our place and number - and a run for President of the Student Body - a race lost when the Radical (me) and the liberal split the vote and elected the standard frat guy John Smith. That turned out to be interesting when the big show rolled into Knoxville in the end of May.

HOW NIXON USED THE MEDIA AND BILLY GRAHAM TO RAP TO THE STUDENTS AT TENNESSEE. - title by GARRY WILLS subtitle JESUS WEPT

Time and events conspired that Spring to force Richard Nixon into a trip to Knoxville. The massacre at Kent State and the bombing of Cambodia had brought the anti-war effort to a crescendo and the campuses across the country to a screeching halt.

Nixon wanted to show that he was welcome on a college campus somewhere - anywhere. And when it was discovered that his good friend the Reverend Billy Graham was holding a crusade in Neyland Stadium on the campus of the largest University in the south during final exam week the prospect was just too good to pass up. It would also serve as a campaign stop to bolster the chances of the opponent of his nemesis Senator Albert Gore Sr who now openly opposed his war.

Never mind that the stadium would be filled with bus loads from outlying churches instead of students. The stadium was on the campus and the students would be cramming for exams or on their way home for the Summer with their exams behind them. Surrounded by good Christian Republicans from East Tennessee the threat of any demonstration was minor and this would be a religious service where he would be at worship. Never mind that the platform would host the entire Republican state Congressional Delegation without a single Democrat in sight and feature prayers for the success of his war policy.

As the recently defeated candidate of the left for Student Body President it fell to me to help organize some kind of protest to the NIXON visit. Luckily there were many who shared my disgust over the sham appearance including several prominent members of the faculty including Dr Richard Marius
who later moved to Harvard, and Dr Charles H Reynolds the head of the Theology Department (who's son you may know as the INSTAPUNDIT )
We put together a plan for a silent demonstration inside the stadium as part of the Crusade audience. I helped print up several hundred small signs that read simply THOU SHALT NOT KILL. Afterall who could object to a commandment at a religious service?
We gathered at the Student Center a few hours before the stadium would open and the speakers including myself urged the demonstrators to be respectful and silent and allow our signs to make our statement. We talked about going down on the field when Reverend Graham made "the Call" and holding up our signs or our hands in the PEACE sign. (my apology for the picture quality)

One hour prior to the opening of the stadium we moved about 600 strong to the concrete interlocking U and T - a gift to UT from my fraternity when I was it's President seen in the stadium picture above. Everyone remained calm and orderly as they opened the gates.
At that point the problems began. Knoxville and Campus Police did their best to disrupt our orderly entry to the stadium. When they saw our THOU SHALT NOT KILL signs they ripped them out of our hands. Only a small number made it to the stands hidden inside clothing. A student who had our bull horn was handcuffed and dragged the length of the field to the roar of approval by the "Christians". It was like the Biblical Christians and lions in some bizarre reverse.
This youtube vidio shows a fleeting glimpse of the demonstrators who managed to get their signs into the stadium at the 1 minute mark of the 3:22 video

The long haired prophet looking fellow with the raised fist in the striped mattress cover held a rather large sign saying LET MY PEOPLE GO.

Since most of the signs were confiscated and demonstrators were being subjected to some rather vile comments and shouts from the assembled "Christians" the idea of a silent protest soon fell apart when Nixon took the podium. Police photographers took pictures of the protesters and police filled the sidelines in front of the protester section. Nixon's words were not drowned out by the small group of protesters but they were overwhelmed by the 90,000 Christians who successfully shouted the protesters and Nixon down.

HERE is what GARRY WILLS had to say about the events and my participation:

"Knoxville police, looking about for applicable laws, had found one to protect him from "political" dissent. Tennessee statute TCA 39-1204 forbids anyone to disrupt a religious service. That would allow cops to take away political placards, ban any political shouts (even those for Nixon), expel all who indulged in politics during "the service" so much for outside agitators. For inside ones, the police had another inhibitor. After a disturbance on January 15 of this year, police had identified and arrested some of those present, with the help of photographs; now they would ostentatiously shuffle those same photos while taking new ones, pointing (pointedly) at known campus radicals; promising, by that simple act. more arrests of the January 15 sort. Just to make sure that the nonpolitical nature of the meeting was understood, the campaign manager for Republican senatorial candidate Bill Brock, on the night before Nixon's appearance, talked with a Nixon advance man, Dick Andrews, and told Y.A.F. people not to bring their placards to the stadium—instead to line the motorcade route with them.
Would the plan work? Secret Service men, after careful soundings, decided that it would. After all, this was Big Orange Country. The school belonged to the community, which belonged to the First Baptist Church, which was heart and soul (if only he would have them) devoted to Billy, who is servitor and celebrator of any President (of power), but especially of his friend and fellow addict of success-religiosity, Richard Nixon. Town, gown, bank, church, and Crusade were of one mind. Even the Mayor of Knoxville addressed the Crusade, sang in its choir, and acted as counselor to those coming out of the stands, after Billy's sermon, to make their decision for Christ on the rubber turf. He also issued a proclamation to all city employees, telling them to renew their commitment to God. The police chief's daughter told the Crusade why she was an American. A high-school graduating class held its baccalaureate service at the Crusade, in its gowns and mortarboards. If this was not Nixon country, then what is?
But what of the university's own students? Would they join this universal hymn of praise to God and Nixon? The question hardly crossed local people's minds. The U.T. product was well-known—the perfect fraternity man, the perfect sorority girl. Call them Ken and Barbie— they were mainly wardrobe. "The first thing we did to a pledge," one senior remembered for me, "was grab his shirt by the collar and look at his label. London Fog coats, Gant shirts, Canterbury belts, Haggar slacks, a red carnation on one's blazer, three-piece suits— that's what we looked for."
It made a pretty package, whether male or female. Barbie, for instance; Tricia Nixon corn-fed to pleasanter roundnesses—a Tricia with a body, as it were; and with the same fixed smile, the lidless doll-gaze, to proclaim unassuming dutifulness. Barbie is pretty, glib, obedient, glowing—every Big Orange footballer's patriotic wet-dream.
Or Barry—Barry Bozeman. His father, a local politician, was the university's head of student activities as an undergraduate; his mother was editor of the school paper and a Torehbearer (one of the all-round top-seven seniors). Barry had not missed a single home game since he was six years old; he had acted in the university's theatre for children. Easily, with no effort, he became president of his freshman class (in which capacity he led a demonstration in favor of the Vietnam war), president of his fraternity (Phi Sigma Kappa). Pinned for a while to the Phi Sig National Moonlight Girl, he returned to his high-school sweetheart, the storybook ending. Another perfect product, Ken-Barry matching Barbie-Sue, ready to be set up like a trophy in some cushioned Knoxville office. But what happens when Perfection displays a crack or a flaw? Terrible things in Knoxville and that’s what happened with Barry, last fall, while he was working as a booking agent for a rock band, he began to let his hair grow. All his father's friends noticed, and whispered, and his father noticed their whispers. Which led to an ultimatum by Christmas—cut his hair or get out of the house. Barry got out; got arrested with twenty-one others in the January 15 campus disturbance; joined a March Against Repression led by Jerry Rubin, in Nashville; ran—and ran strong— as a radical for Student President this spring. Something bad was happening on campus.
So Barry, once the rah-iest of rah-boys, was there, with two hundred others, on the day before Nixon came, plotting ways to show student disapproval of his coming. It was a small group but influential, containing most of the active politicians on campus. Even the new Student President, a conservative, was there—John Smith. The Student Government Association used to belong to the fraternities, but changes had been taking place across the last four years. John Smith, Barry's Phi Sig brother, barely squeaked in when the school's Left vote split between the "radical" (Barry) and a "liberal" candidate."

You can read the entire excellent article by GARRY WILLS right here

Once you've seen the video and read the GARRY WILLS article you will see that our protest didn't have much effect. Nixon and the media left the impression that Nixon had indeed gone on a major American Campus and was welcomed. But we tried and for our efforts 57 arrest warrents were issued and served for people who dared to take THOU SHALT NOT KILL signs to a religious service. They were charged with DISRUPTING A RELIGIOUS SERVICE. A religious service for only the Republican Right in the Rightwing Republican city of Knoxville. Their convictions were appealed to higher courts until they were eventually overturned.

For me these events represented a final stage in change from my original ambition to serve my father's wishes that I enter politics and run for Governor. Instead I left for Canada on the eve of Nixon's reelection in 72 despite my lucky lottery number because I refused to live in a country that would elect that him twice.

If you happened to be in Knoxville around that time I am collecting the recollections of participants in these events for a website and a book and I would love to hear from you via my FACEBOOK page

If all of this hasn't satisfied your thirst for East Tennessee politics read the Faculty Report on the events involved HERE The Faculty did acknowledge that the confiscation of our THOU SHALT NOT KILL signs was regrettable.

You may also find a few pages of the BILLY GRAHAM BIOGRAPHY concerning the NIXON visit to the KNOXVILLE crusade at Tennessee of interest. Here is a link to that content

FULMER CLIMBS TO HOT SEAT 2ND PLACE

2007-10-22T12:49:00.000-04:00

Rank	▲▼	Coach Name	School	Age	Conf.	Compensation	Yrs.	W	L	T	Win %	Yrs.	W	L	T	Win %	W	L	W	L
1	▲	Charlie Weis	Notre Dame	51	Ind.	$3,500,000	3	20	13	0	.606	3	20	13	0	.606	10	3	1	7
2	▲	Philip Fulmer	Tennessee	57	SEC	$2,050,000	16	141	44	0	.762	16	141	44	0	.762	9	4	4	3
3	▲	Mike Stoops	Arizona	46	Pac 10	$865,000	4	14	28	0	.333	4	14	28	0	.333	6	6	2	6
4	▼	Bill Callahan	Nebraska	51	Big 12	$1,690,317	4	26	19	0	.578	4	26	19	0	.578	9	5	4	4
5	▼	Houston Nutt	Arkansas	50	SEC	$1,049,644	15	106	70	0	.602	10	71	47	0	.602	10	4	4	3
6	▼	Phil Bennett	SMU	52	CUSA	$495,602	6	18	47	0	.277	6	18	47	0	.277	6	6	1	6
7	▲	Ed Orgeron	Ole Miss	46	SEC	$905,000	3	9	22	0	.290	3	9	22	0	.290	4	8	2	6
8	▲	Guy Morriss	Baylor	56	Big 12	$1,144,236	7	27	50	0	.351	5	18	36	0	.333	4	8	3	5
9	▲	Kirk Ferentz	Iowa	52	Big 10	$2,840,000	12	70	69	0	.504	9	58	47	0	.552	6	7	3	5
10	▲	Steve Kragthorpe	Louisville	41	Big East	$1,100,000	4	33	26	0	.559	1	4	4	0	.500	8	5	4	4
11	▼	Dennis Franchione	Texas A&M	56	Big 12	$2,012,200	25	186	98	2	.650	5	31	25	0

21st Century Pleasure and Pain Index

2007-10-21T10:54:00.000-04:00

Dear AD Hamilton

Our family has compiled this experience of Tennessee Football since 2000 as a guide for you to review performance of this coaching staff

What we expect is a program with more positive pleasure inducing experiences than depressing painful experiences.

If we had mood rings while watching the UT Football team this century this would be the result
Blue is depressing
Red is Anger
Black in neutral or mildly happy
Orange is Euphoric
Unlisted games were expected wins like Vandy, Miss St, Ol Miss, Ky and cupcakes

The 13/22 column next to scores is the Vol/opponent AP ranking

2000
Sept. 2 So Miss N Knoxville ESPN 13/22 19-16 W
Sept. 16 Florida Knoxville CBS 11/6 23-27 L
Sept. 30 LSU N B Rouge ESPN 11/-- 31-38 L OT
Oct. 7 Georgia N Athens ESPN 21/19 10-21 L
Oct. 21 Alabama Knoxville CBS 20-10 W
Cotton Bowl
Jan. 1 Kansas State Dallas Fox 21/11 21-35 L
2001
Sept. 29 LSU N Knoxville ESPN 7/14 26-18 W
Oct. 6 Georgia Knoxville CBS 6/-- 24-26 L
Oct. 20 Alabama Tuscaloosa CBS 11/-- 35-24 W
Nov. 3 Notre Dame South Bend NBC 7/-- 28-18 W
Dec. 1 Florida Gainesville CBS 5/2 34-32 W
SEC Championship Game
LSU ATLANTA CBS 2/21 20-31 L
Florida Citrus Bowl
Jan. 1 Michigan Orlando ABC 8/17 45-17 W
2002
Sept. 21 Florida Knoxville CBS 4/10 13-30 L
Oct. 5 Arkansas N Knoxville ESPN 10/-- 41-38 W 6OT
Oct. 12 Georgia Athens CBS 10/6 13-18 L
Oct. 26 Alabama N Knoxville ESPN 16/19 14-34 L
Nov. 9 Miami (Fla.) Knoxville CBS --/1 3-26 L
Peach Bowl
Dec. 31 Maryland N Atlanta ESPN --/20 3-30 L
2003
Sept. 20 Florida Gainesville CBS 12/17 24-10 W
Oct. 4 Auburn N Auburn ESPN 7/-- 21-28 L
Oct. 11 Georgia N Knoxville ESP2 13/8 14-41 L
Oct. 25 Alabama Tuscaloosa CBS 22/-- 51-43 W 5OT
Nov. 8 Miami (Fla.) Miami ABC 18/6 10-6 W
Peach Bowl
Jan. 2 Clemson N Atlanta ESPN 6/-- 14-27 L
2004
Sept. 18 Florida N Knoxville CBS 13/11 30-28 W
Oct. 2 Auburn N Knoxville ESPN 10/8 10-34 L
Oct. 9 Georgia Athens CBS 17/3 19-14 W
Oct. 23 Alabama Knoxville CBS 11/-- 17-13 W
Oct. 30 SCarolina Columbia JP 11/-- 43-29 W
Nov. 6 Notre Dame Knoxville CBS 9/-- 13-17 L
SEC Championship Game
Dec. 4 Auburn N Atlanta CBS 15/3 28-38 L
Cotton Bowl
Jan. 1 Texas A&M Dallas Fox 15/22 38-7 W
2005
Sept. 17 Florida N Gainesville CBS 5/6 7-16 L
Sept. 26 LSU B Rouge ESP2 10/4 30-27 W OT
Oct. 8 Georgia Knoxville CBS 8/5 14-27 L
Oct. 22 Alabama Tuscaloosa CBS 17/5 3-6 L
Oct. 29 S Carolina N Knoxville ESP2 23/-- 15-16 L
Nov. 5 Notre Dame South Bend NBC --/8 21-41 L
Nov. 19 Vanderbilt Knoxville JP 24-28 L
2006
Sept. 2 California Knoxville ESPN 23/9 35-18 W
Sept. 9 Air Force Knoxville PPV 11/-- 31-30 W
Sept. 16 Florida N Knoxville CBS 13/7 20-21 L
Oct. 7 Georgia N Athens ESPN 13/10 51-33 W
Oct. 21 Alabama Knoxville CBS 7/-- 16-13 W
Nov. 4 LSU Knoxville CBS 8/13 24-28 L
Nov. 11 Arkansas N Fayetteville ESP2 13/11 14-31 L
Outback Bowl
Jan. 1 Penn State Tampa ESPN 17/-- 10-20 L

2007 FLORIDA Gainesville CBS 3/22 HUGE DEPRESSING LOSS 59 TO 20

2007 ALABAMA Tuscaloosa CBS --/20 HUGE DEPRESSING LOSS 41 TO 17

NINE GAMES in ORANGE = Euphoria Inducing
EXCELLENT PERFOMANCE

FOURTEEN GAMES in BLACK = Expected Outcome EXPECTED PERFORMANCE

EIGHTEEN GAMES IN BLUE = Depression - poor play in loss or win
DEPRESSING PERFORMANCE

THIRTEEN GAMES IN RED = ANGER - seriously inept execution
MISERABLE PERFORMANCE

Thirty-one game day experience this century have been depressing or anger inducing.

Fifteen important games resulted in expected outcomes.

Nine games resulted in BIG ORANGE EUPHORIA due to an excellent win

Ending up expected or euphoric experiences total 24 times

Depression and Anger total 31 times.

This ratio of disappointments (anger and depression) to elation is 31 to 9
a 3 to 1 chance that were disappointed at the end of watching an important UT Football game and that ration of satisfaction to disappointment is unacceptable

SQUANDERING PERFECT OPPORTUNITY

2007-10-21T08:30:00.000-04:00

SQUANDERING PERFECT OPPORTUNITY

Never more obvious than today - we have a serious coaching problem

A win today at Alabama and Tennessee is alone atop the SEC EAST
Ranked 13th or better in the country
and well on the way to an SECCG and a possible BCS birth

Arian Foster - running through Alabama like Sherman marched through Georgia
7.5 yards per carry - he looked unstoppable.

So what does the Tennessee brain trust do?
3rd down near midfield Tennessee up 14 to 10
3rd and short who gets the rock?
Arian Foster right?

NOPE they don't have Arian in the game (Roper dope)
and Cutcliffe calls for the run with Creer - NO GAIN
But we can correct that mistake - bring in Foster and pick up one yard
NOPE - punt
Bama marches over our 'well coached' Chavis defense and it's 17 to 14

Halftime - our brilliant brain trust of coaching will adjust wont' they?

3rd quarter down 10 - Foster still running great at 7.5 ypc
Give it to Foster right?
Nope - Cut a screen pass that's blocked
Still we have Foster and short yardage for a fourth down conversion
GIVE THE DAMN BALL TO FOSTER
Nope - lets punt because our defense can hold them thinks Fulmer
Why? has our defense held them yet?
NOPE - and the rout is on.

There comes a time when fans have to recognize the futility of supporting a staff that has no ability to adjust to adversity during a game
We have to know that the inability to give the team a chance by putting the ball in the hands of our best chance (Arian Foster on 3rd and short) is a sure sign of a breakdown in basic intelligence.

This isn't the teams fault
And you cannot work to fix stupidity
Fulmer and his staff have been turned out by Meyer, Tedford and Saban and there is no sense in supporting an intelligence deficit.
Fulmer and company are never going to get any smarter
And all the film and hard work won't make a bit of difference

I really hoped up until today that CPF & company could luck out an get to Atlanta
It was clear at UGA and MsState we had figured out how to run
If was obvious in the 2nd quarter today
But our team cannot overcome a porous defense and a massive deficit in coaching guts and intelligence.

Those two 3rd and short opportunities
With Bama unable to stop Foster
showed that
1) the staff wasn't smart enough to run Foster
2) the staff doesn't have the guts to run Foster twice (on 3rd and 4th)
Our offensive team could have won that game if the coaches gave them the opportunity - our defensive "genius" was incapable of stopping Hall
You don't punt on 4th and one 10 points down when your defense can't stop the opponent.

The staff has no idea what a halftime adjustment is - they have to study film and work like heck and you can't do that at halftime. We require enough intelligence in a coaching staff to make adjustments without film and a week to work on a game that ended on Saturday afternoon
Our staff will study Alabama film this week and work like heck to fix it.
But we won't be playing Alabama next saturday.

I really feel sorry for Erik and Arian today
These guys should be having a great season
But our coaches don't seem to think so
In fact our coaches don't seem to think.

Tennessee should be ranked 13th and leading the SEC East as a favorite to beat USC at home this week. If the team had been allowed to do what they do best - have Arian Foster run the rock until he is stopped.
But we have a coaching intelligence problem so plain even I can see it

That's what I really think and I don't know Jack.
But I'm allowed to show my ignorance on a messageboard
and make an ass of myself
so there it is - your turn to explain how wrong I am
and how great our coaching staff really is.

The Greatt Pumpkin

2007-10-15T22:24:00.001-04:00

SINKING TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE SEC

DON'T ENABLE MEDIOCRITY
IT LEADS TO PERVERSION

TIME TO CALL OUT THE WICKED WITCH
CAST A SPELL
AND FLICK THE SWITCH

FULMER IN FORMALDEHYDE

THE COACH WE HAVE

THE COACH WE NEED

OUTERMONVOLIAN SALUTES THE COACH

WHERE IS YOUR HEAD COACH?

SELF PORTRAIT OF THE HEAD COACH

IT'S TIME TO GO PHIL
YOU'VE BECOME A BAD JOKE

HALFWAY HOME - anything is possible

2007-10-15T16:14:00.000-04:00

At this point in the season all things are still possible.

The Vols can still win the East, make it to the SECCG and make the Sugar Bowl and a top 5 final ranking
giving us at least 5 more years of Fulmer.
OR
The Vols could implode and lose 3 or 4 more games, make it to a lower tier bowl and end the season with mounting pressure for a coaching change at season's end.

Most likely there will be a middle ground with a 4 and 2 finish
for an 8 and 4 season and "one more year" for CPF

It all starts Saturday at Alabama.
The first CPF vs Satan match up in Tuscaloosa
Bama hasn't one win vs a team with a winning record
Bama lost to UGA at home, The Vols trashed UGA at home
Bama lost to a poor FSU team on the road
The Vols were embarrassed by Cal and Florida
This is a game that Tennessee has to win and should win.
CPF can still hang his hat on dominance of the Tide and that carries lots of weight (pun intended) with older alums. A loss to Bama the first year of Satans dark reign in the firey pit of hell could doom the scourge of Bama in Knoxville. If CPF can't beat Satan this year how can he hope to win when Satan has his own recruits?
The Vols should be able to run on Bama and control the clock
Vols 42 Bama 17
Euphoria continues in K town.

A week away comes South Carolina
Here's a real chance for some progress in the polls and a signature win for this team and CPF
The Fightin Penis comes to K-town with the coach Vols and Fulmer love to hate.
SC beat UGA on the road by 4 - Tennessee beat UGA at home by 21
SC beat MS State at home by 17 - Tennessee beat MS State on the road by 12
a pretty even comparison on the same opponent record.
UK has a loss to LSU on the road and a win vs KY at home
a mere 14 point win over La Laf, 6 points over UNC, and a blowout vs SC State.
TN was embarrassed in the 2 losses to Cal and Florida while SC stayed within a dozen of LSU
South Carolina is highly ranked - 6 in the BCS 6 in the AP 6 in the Harris 8 in the USA Today
South Carolina plays Vanderbilt at home this week while UT plays Bama on the road
South Carolina has Spurrier and Tennessee has Spurrier's dog
Everything seems to be lining up in South Carolina's favor but this game is a must win for CPF as a career saver. If CPF can beat this Spurrier led SC team in Knoxville it guarantees another year on his contract
So my pick is Tennessee 27 South Carolina 24
won on a field goal by honest Dan Lincoln and a jump to top 12 status for Tennessee

LA LAF - Vols win in lackluster fashion to go 7 and 2 on the season.

Arkansas Ambush

09/01	Troy	W 46-26
09/15	at Alabama	L 41-38
09/22	#21 Kentucky	L 42-29
09/29	N Texas	W 66-7
10/06	UT-Chatt	W 34-15
10/13	#22 Auburn	L 9-7
10/20	at Ole Miss	lose
10/27	Fla Int'l	win
11/03	#6 S Carolina	lose
11/10	at #21 Tennessee	TBD
11/17	Miss St	lose
11/23	at #4 LSU	lose

Nutts job is on the line - in fact it's probably already lost by the time the hogs get to Knoxville
The Hogs will go down in South Carolina and may end up in the West cellar with a loss to Ol Miss
Fulmer riding high off of the Vols wins over Satan and Spurrier doesn't do enough to keep the team from hitting the field overconfident.
This is just the kind of game where some great sideline game day coaching is required to overcome the shell shock of falling behind to an inferior but dangerous opponent. It will take a bonehead play on the part of Arkansas like the 98 Stoner fumble for the Vols to pull out a win.
This one could go either way and that will infuriate the faithful - which could be a good thing for this Volunteer team with Kentucky coming up in 2 weeks. Good thing this game is in Knoxville.
Vols win 31 to 28 in OT

Vanderbilt Victory

09/01	Richmond	W 41-17
09/08	Alabama	L 24-10
09/15	Ole Miss	W 31-17
09/29	E Michigan	W 30-7
10/06	at Auburn	L 35-7
10/13	#24 Georgia	L 20-17
10/20	at #6 S Carolina	loss
10/27	Miami (OH)	win
11/03	at #15 Florida	loss
11/10	#7 Kentucky	loss
11/17	at #21 Tennessee	TBD
11/24	W Forest	win

This game will be a yawner
The Vols will be drained from the close call with Arkansas but determined not to make the same mistake twice
Vols 28 Vandy 14

TENNESSEE plays KENTUCKY for far more than the beer barrel

09/01	E Kentucky	W 50-10
09/08	Kent St	W 56-20
09/15	#9 Louisville	W 40-34
09/22	at Arkansas	W 42-29
09/29	FAU	W 45-17
10/04	at #11 S Carolina	L 38-23
10/13	#1 LSU	W 43-37
10/20	#15 Florida	win
10/27	Miss St	win
11/10	at Vanderbilt	win
11/17	at #20 Georgia	win
11/24	#21 Tennessee

Tennessee vs Kentucky for the right to play LSU or Auburn in the SEC Championship Game and a shot at the BCS Sugar Bowl. The biggest border rivalry game in the entire long history of the series. And this is a 100 year history starting back in 1906

Kentucky has won but 3 times in the last 40 years the last time was 22 year ago
22 years ago was the last time that Kentucky had at least 9 wins in a season
Even if KY loses to Florida they will still have 9 wins when the Vols arrives in Lexington.

KENTUCKY VS TENNESSEE HISTORY

2006 vs. *Kentucky (8-5) W 17 12
2005- @ *Kentucky (3-8) W 27 8
2004- vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 37 31
2003- @ *Kentucky (4-8) W 20 7
2002- vs. *Kentucky (7-5) W 24 0
2001- @ *Kentucky (2-9) W 38 35
2000- vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 59 20
1999 @ *Kentucky (6-6) W 56 21
1998- vs. *Kentucky (7-5) W 59 21
1997- @ *Kentucky (5-6) W 59 31
1996 vs. *Kentucky (4-7) W 56 10
1995- @ *Kentucky (4-7) W 34 31
1994 vs. *Kentucky (1-10) W 52 0
1993 @ *Kentucky (6-6) W 48 0
1992- vs. *Kentucky (4-7) W 34 13
1991 @ *Kentucky (3-8) W 16 7
1990 vs. *Kentucky (4-7) W 42 28
1989- @ *Kentucky (6-5) W 31 10
1988- vs. *Kentucky (5-6) W 28 24
1987- @ *Kentucky (5-6) W 24 22
1986 vs. *Kentucky (5-5-1) W 28 9
1985- @ *Kentucky (5-6) W 42 0
1984- vs. *Kentucky (9-3) L 12 17
1983- @ *Kentucky (6-5-1) W 10 0
1982- vs. *Kentucky (0-10-1) W 28 7
1981- @ *Kentucky (3-8) L 10 21
1980- vs. *Kentucky (3-8) W 45 14
1979- @ *Kentucky (5-6) W 20 17
1978- vs. *Kentucky (4-6-1) W 29 14
1977 @ *Kentucky (10-1) L 17 21
1976- vs. *Kentucky (8-4) L 0 7
1975- @ *Kentucky (2-8-1) W 17 13
1974- vs. *Kentucky (6-5) W 24 7
1973- @ *Kentucky (5-6) W 16 14
1972- vs. *Kentucky (3-8) W 17 7
1971- @ *Kentucky (3-8) W 21 7
1970 vs. *Kentucky (2-9) W 45 0
1969- @ *Kentucky (2-8) W 31 26
1968- vs. *Kentucky (3-7) W 24 7
1967- @ *Kentucky (2-8) W 17 7
1966- vs. *Kentucky (3-6-1) W 28 19
1965 @ *Kentucky (6-4) W 19 3
1964- vs. *Kentucky (5-5) L 7 12
1963 @ *Kentucky (3-6-1) W 19 0
1962- vs. *Kentucky (3-5-2) L 10 12
1961- @ *Kentucky (5-5) W 26 16
1960 vs. *Kentucky (5-4-1) T 10 10
1959- @ *Kentucky (4-6) L 0 20
1958- vs. *Kentucky (5-4-1) L 2 6
1957- @ *Kentucky (3-7) L 6 20
1956- vs. *Kentucky (6-4) W 20 7
1955- @ *Kentucky (6-3-1) L 0 23
1954- vs. *Kentucky (7-3) L 13 14
1953 @ *Kentucky (7-2-1) L 21 27
1952- vs. *Kentucky (5-4-2) T 14 14
1951- @ *Kentucky (8-4) W 28 0
1950- vs. *Kentucky (11-1) W 7 0
1949-@ *Kentucky (9-3) W 6 0
1948- vs. *Kentucky (5-3-2) T 0 0
1947 @ *Kentucky (8-3) W 13 6
1946 vs. *Kentucky (7-3) W 7 0
1945 @ *Kentucky (2-8) W 14 0
1944- @ *Kentucky (3-6) W 21 7
1942- vs. *Kentucky (3-6-1) W 26 0
1941- @ *Kentucky (5-4) W 20 7

1940- vs. *Kentucky (5-3-2) W 33 0
1939- @ *Kentucky (6-2-1) W 19 0
1938 vs. *Kentucky (2-7) W 46 0
1937 @ *Kentucky (4-6) W 13 0
1936 vs. *Kentucky (6-4) W 7 6
1935- @ *Kentucky (5-4) L 0 27
1934- vs. *Kentucky (5-5) W 19 0
1933- @ *Kentucky (5-5) W 27 0
1932- vs. *Kentucky (4-5) W 26 0
1931- @ *Kentucky (5-2-2) T 6 6
1930- vs. *Kentucky (5-3) W 8 0
1929- @ *Kentucky (6-1-1) T 6 6
1928 vs. *Kentucky (4-3-1) T 0 0
1927- @ *Kentucky (3-6-1) W 20 0
1926- vs. *Kentucky (2-6-1) W 6 0
1925 @ *Kentucky (6-3) L 20 23
1924- vs. *Kentucky (4-5) L 6 27
1923- @ *Kentucky (4-3-2) W 18 0
1922 vs. *Kentucky (6-3) W 14 7
1921 @ *Kentucky (4-3-1) T 0 0
1920 vs. Kentucky (3-4-1) W 14 7
1919- @ Kentucky (3-4-1) L 0 13
1916- vs. Kentucky (4-1-2) T 0 0
1915- @ Kentucky (6-1-1) L 0 6
1914 vs. Kentucky (non-IA) W 23 6
1913 @ Kentucky (non-IA) W 13 7
1912 vs. Kentucky (non-IA) L 6 13
1911 @ Kentucky (non-IA) L 0 12
1910- vs. Kentucky (non-IA) L 0 10
1909 @ Kentucky (non-IA) L 0 10
1908 vs. Kentucky (non-IA) W 7 0
1907- vs. Kentucky (non-IA) T 0 0
1906 @ Kentucky (non-IA) L 0 21

Tennessee has 20 losses to Kentucky in 100 years and 9 came before 1925
There have been 8 ties in the series 6 before 1935

Fear & Loathing - a Final Fantasy

2007-10-14T19:48:00.000-04:00

Halfway through the 2007 season the Fear & Loathing saga continues

Saturday was fueled by too much caffeine, cheap booze, hillbilly heroin and nail biting football. Following the KY/LSU, Cal/OSU, and Tn/Miss State afternoon and evening the night was filled with sweat soaked sheets and vivid nightmares.

A third week of number one's through tens that couldn't hold on to enjoy their lofty perches. Does nobody but my girlfriend want to be on top?

A freshman QB at Cal mounts a masterful comeback drive to save the day yet genius Tedford fails to make him aware that he can't be caught inbounds in a game that should have been decided in OT.

Miracle Miles looked dumb as a plow horse in thoroughbred country as the freakin KY Wildcats knock LSU out of first in an amazing series of OT periods.

It was enough to keep me tossing and turning throughout the night while what few remaining brain cells still exist concocted a terrifying fantasy to end the season.

The final standings of SEC teams come to this
Team overall SEC
LSU 11-1 7-1
Auburn 9-3 6-2
Ms St 7-5 4-4
Bama 6–6 3-5
Ark 5-7 1-7
Ol Miss 3-9 0-8

Tenn 10-2 7-1
USC 10-2 6-2
Kentucky 10-2 6-2
Florida 8-4 4-4
Georgia 7-5 3-5
Vandy 5-7 1-7

with Tennessee winning out by stomping the vile Bammers in Tuscaloosa and actually out-smarting SOS in Knoxville.
Yes the one loss fightin penis riding a top 10 national ranking comes to town as the solid favorite after a 50 point spurrioring of hapless Vandy ready to humiliate CPF in his big house but it's Steve who has to broadcast the SOS after a bonehead coaching decision deflates the cocks.

Reverting to type the Vols squeak out a lackluster win over La Laf and scrape by Arky with an eerily similar to 98 win over the Hogs. That mediocre performance is topped in Knoxville as 100,000 fans fall asleep during a yawner over Vandy. (My dream was interrupted by what I perceived to be mass snoring but it turned out to be the dog)

That sets up a huge game in Lexington featuring stands full of sphincter grips that could turn a lumps of coal into diamonds won on an Ainge to Chris Brown 2 point conversion in the 4th OT making the Vols the Eastern champs.

The Vols then beat LSU in Atlanta avenging the 2001 debacle as Miracle Miles actually wins the most inept coach in the SEC award presented by BillVol prior to his departure for Michigan.

The Vols are awarded the Sugar Bowl and unbeaten Hawaii
where a win ends the season in the top 5. Sheep reproduction the following week results in a mini baby boom with a record in baby boys named Eric, Arian, and Lucas and girls named Erica, Arianna, and Lucretia born in Sept of 08.

Then miraculously Fulmer decides to go out on top at Vicki's urging after a doughnut induced heartburn is mistaken for a heart attack

We hire the greatest college football coach in history and win 3 straight national titles.
Pearl brings home Tennessee's first NC on the hardwood and Pat adds number eight in a blowout win over UConn.

How's that for a Final Fantasy?

Come to think of it the Fulmer resignation removes any thought that this is a nightmare and puts it into wet dream territory.

FEAR & LOATHING on Bulldawg Day

2007-10-10T09:42:00.000-04:00

"We're baaaaaaak - We're baaaaaaak, Baaaaaad wolves, Baaaad wolves"

Pulling out of a Jagermeister and hillbilly heroin induced stupor near noon to a cacophony of bleating sheep all over the frozen steppes of OuterMONVolia. "Baaaaaad wolves, baaaaad wolves"

We knew it was coming. Another day in the life as predictable a Tagament for that nausea inducing stomach acid from too much tailgate tortured meat and concession food. Once again it's Richt's turn to take it on the chin as the rotund regent of rebirth gains another life to torture the MONVol faithful.

Holy freakin sheepschite how can Doctor Dominate and Mr Laydown N. Hyde occupy the same giant orange shirt? Vampire killers were like a flock of giant blind bats circling the stadium armed with silver stakes to drive into the great pumpkin's faltering heart and this juggernaut of gridiron greatness shows up in a first half for the ages making that huge orange girth go all golden in the late afternoon sun banishing the coffin-nailers in a hail of points and doomsday defense.

The word was out all week - Shooter Bobby Lee Swagger was in the Ayers Hall tower with that high powered sniper rifle ready to deliver the appropriate coup-de-grace in the patron state of shootin stuff. Those giant pigs were being trained in that barn over at Biltmore ready to complete their aborted Hannibal feast. Lose this one and Fulmer's Vol Walk would become a gauntlet of psycho-killers and rabid werewolves unrestrained and ravenous. But that butt ugly UGA and the too pretty Helen Hunt like Richt once again offered up the opportunity for "baaaad wolves we're baaaaaak" under the bright orange Sheepcon5 Sheep Euphoric banner. Looking at the bright side Vols win and MonVols get another year of life; looking at the rough side CPF's mediocrity survives and the MonVols get another year of life. *That's life without parole evidently.

LSU's "Les fear" & "giant nutsack you can see for Miles" did their part as J Hester chewed up the greatest half dozen fourth down yards in Bayou Bengal history to grind the gators into 4th place in the SEC East. This being the same Florida team that brought CPF to the brink of oblivion just thee weeks back. Control of our own destiny is a fearful prospect given a proclivity to self-destruct when left to our own means and ends. A date with the fighting penis on the fourth Saturday in October offers the penultimate opportunity for a typical meltdown of mediocrity in front of the 100,000 Vol faithful. IF and that's a giant IF the Vols can avoid a Crooming in Starkville or the horrible hell of a loss to Satan.

When a 40 point underdog mess of Mensa members can dump "the greatest assemblage of all time talent ever' on the turf of the LA Coliseum you know theres some wacky weird whoo dooo Hollywood shit stewing.

Two consecutive Saturdays of Fighting Zooksters bashing top 10 teams? It's all too grotesque and off kilter causing flashbacks to the days of too much bad acid and the depths of depravity induced by an ether binge.

It's college football the perfect set up for Fear & Loathing

Man up MonVols - we're in for rough week as predicted.

"Baaaaaad Wolves We're Baaaaaaak"

FEAR & LOATHING three – the Anti-Leon

Vindication is sweet as elemental custard dripping from a dead sheep's eye. We pissed em off!!!! The Sunday and Monday reviews of the Bulldawg ass kicking make it perfectly golldarn clear that the only reason that lethargy lifted and hot smoking passion emerged was anger and hurt at 'the doubters'.
All the proof we needed was the hulking head coach doing his best impression of Okie Mike Gundy babbling some gibberish about 'cheap shot' Pennington and the freakin media, and team members in the jubilant locker room giving the canned 'we had to prove the doubters wrong' speech.

Well fellow doubters we have much to be proud of this week. It wasn't Leon's liver-eating positive thinking or spiritual support from the assembled sheep that lit the fire that burned a path through Atlanta to Athens. Hell no.
It's the snarling of wolves at the door that boils the blood and steels the resolve of the cornered.

It will be more difficult to sustain in the wake of such and obvious beat down of old number 12. We cannot let up for a minute if we hope to avoid a Crooming or being burned by Satan. These are the most treacherous of times.

So what do we do MonVols
It's clear that our collective energy as the Anti-Leons led by birmy and the "please god let UGA win so this long dread nightmare can be over" crowd actually had the opposite effect of what seemed to be intended or was it?
If the fulmeristas and the sheep euphoric had remained the only voice the team and staff would have remained blissfully unconscious and just as inept.

Here we have an ultimate Catch 22 we can continue to mercilessly circle and snarl galvanizing the team into fierce action on the field or
we can become the anti-Leons - allowing them to think we were only sheep in wolves

FEAR & LOATHING in OPEN DATE OBLIVION

2007-10-09T15:30:00.001-04:00

Has OPEN DATE ever been fraught with more portent for the Tennessee Football team?

The planets began to align on Friday Night in the New Sombrero as a most recent addition to Division One Football showed that a school with ZERO tradition could play under pressure against the conference leading unbeaten. It showed how a man can do so much with so little - and it didn't involve sneaking up on the unsuspecting in some kind of freakish fluke - the Bulls had done it the year before.
RESULT: Monvols become Bullish on Leavitt - the coach who didn't even have a D I team at USF when Fulmer & Co beat "the fourth best team in Florida" at the apex of the Fulmer career some DECADE in the past.

It happened again early on Saturday. The mighty Penn State Nittnay Lions roll into Champaign to face the coach that couldn't beat Tennessee with all the gold star goods in Gainesville. A team that had won but four Big 10 games in his 3 year tenure made Anthony Morrelli look like the walking disaster that he actually is. With Penn State within one score of taking the lead or tying the game, the last four drives all entered Illinios territory. They ended interception, interception, fumble, and interception. All on the head of Anthony Morelli. Four times the Lions had a chance to take the lead or tie the game. Four times Morelli blew it. And this is the same Anthony Morelli who looked like a golden God on that Tampa gridiron of the Bulls in January. Of course Morrelli had a clear advantage back in January - he was up against Phillip Fulmer charges - not the Fighting Zooksters.
RESULT: Monvols see that the decline of Tennessee Football under Fulmer has reached a new nadir. Zook is preferable to the giant Pumpkin

The following contest featured our next nemisis. The dawgs in Athens put 45 on the board against an Ol Miss team that came within a TD of beating the guys who handed us the worst loss of the FULMER era only a week before. The Dawgs were 28 points better than Florida vs Ol Miss and Florida was 39 points better than the Fulmer led Orange. That's a 61 point differential. Knowing the Dawgs enter Hard Knocksville on Saturday smarting from the 51 points UT posted in Athens a year ago, we can expect no apathy from Richt and Georgia. Home field advantage?
RESULT: Try four in a row for the Dawgs in Knoxville - at least this Monvol thinks so.

Dan Hawkins left the blue fields of Boise for the mile high mountains of Boulder and in a year shaped the happless Buffalo into Sooner Boomers.
RESULT: Monvolians know the Hawk could have done wonders in Knoxville.

Mack Brown from Cookeville TN. takes a pasting in Austin. UT two is in better shape than our UT
RESULT: Could Mack Brown want to come 'home'?

Later that afternoon the top 5 Cal Bears escape by the skin of a mishandled football an inch from goalline for the tying score. Ducks make Bears look mortal.
RESULT: Sheep still baaa baaa baaa about the only losses coming from away games to top 10 teams.

The capper:
Tubberville's Auburn Tigers gave the sheep some company in the 'teams with results worse than ours" category. Aubie had managed to lose to Miss State at home and topple New Mexico State. Now their win vs K State looks good and the loss to USF not so bad. So they roll into the Swamp where the sheep expect another beat down of 59-20 like proportions.
But a funny thing happened on the way to a second consecutive National Title for the Urban Crier's gaytors. Despite his desperate ploy pushing good sportsmanship to the brink a freshman kicker nails two 44 yard field goals in a row and it's bedlam in Knoxville.
RESULT: Sheep read the outcome as new life for the Vols
Monvols see the harsh reality. CPF's charges are 42 points worse than the 3 and 2 Auburn Tigers with Brandon freakin Cox at quarterback.

So it's Sheep Euphoric when it should be
FEAR AND LOATHING IN KNOXVILLE:
The Sheep are all wired into CPF's survival trip now. Fulmer's crashed around Tennessee selling "turn the corner" without ever giving a thought to the grim meat-hook realities that are lying in wait for all the people who take him seriously... All those pathetically eager orange sheep who think they can buy victory and championships for working like heck to fix it. But their loss and failure is ours too. What Fulmer takes down with him is the central illusion of a Championship seeking style that he helped create. Now a decade of permanent losers and failed seekers, who never understood the essential old mystic fallacy of the Big Orange culture: the desperate assumption that somebody, or at least some force, was tending the light at the end of the tunnel.

We want to stay at that championship level and there is only one road back to the top - a flat-out high speed burn through Fulmer and Chavis and Cutcliffe too. Or it's straigh off the cliff and straight on into frantic oblivion. (apologies to HST may he RIP)

Smokey in a bag

2007-10-06T12:05:00.001-04:00

Smokin Smokey

2007-10-04T13:18:00.001-04:00

The Voodoo that You Do so well...

2004-11-06T02:35:00.000-05:00

There is a light at the end of the Bush economic tunnel. But unfortunately, it's a train that will run over us. What can we do to correct the mess we are in, created by reckless tax cutting for the conservative elites, combined with a Federal spending policy that can only be described as "more of everything for anybody that might possibly ever consider voting Republican". And 500 Billion dollar Budget deficits, 8 Trillion Dollars in total accumulated debt (remember when we lamented under Reagan crossing over One Trillion Dollars in Federal debt? How quaint that time now seems.

Right now, America is sucking in almost 80% of the entire world's accumulated savings to finance our ever widening budget deficit and our current accounts deficit (thats the trade deficit). How long can that continue?

What is the solution? Is there a solution? I think Bush is gambling that he can grow the economy out of this mess. It's the cornerstone of supply side economics, which is really what he's been doing for 4 years. But so far, it's not working. The Bushites now use what is called "dynamic budgeting formulas" in projecting future economic performance and the impact of tax cuts. It was never used before the Bush administration. In short, it factors increased economic growth from tax cuts into future projections of increased tax revenues.

I got another term for it. Voodoo Economics. Props and thanks to Poppy Bush. It's complete and utter nonsense. It builds a house of cards based upon false assumptions and then amplifies the effect of the false assumptions by multiplying by additional false assumptions until you can project the success you will never attain.

What we are going to have to do is balance the budget. Or bring it into closer balance. By either raising taxes, cutting spending, or both. No more tax cuts with false projections of increased tax collection based upon economic growth that's just not occurring. I think some would go far more toward spending cuts as the solution. But realistically, the political will for balancing the budget with only spending cuts isn't there. I would prefer that, to the complete meltdown of our economy that we are headed toward.

If world savings is being productively put to work in America, then economically it's not a bad thing. But what is actually happening, is China and Japan are loaning us the money to finance the purchase of Chinese and Japanese imports. And we are paying the interest on that money. Then the rest of what they loan us is used to finance Bush's tax cuts and deficit spending and your children will pay the interest on that.

Everyone knows what is happening in international markets. But right now, the best and safest place to protect your investment is in the currency of the worlds most powerful economy, backed by the world's most powerful military. A nation can't be a net debtor nation forever. Investors will look at other options to park their money. OPEC is currently considering pricing oil in Euros. More nations will look at Euros as an alternative to dollars. And as Euro denominated investments grow, the need to recirculation dollars by purchasing US treasury debt will fall. And we will need to increase interest rates to attract that "crack" capital the US economy is addicted to.

At some point we are mortgaging our future. Heck, we passed that point 35 years ago. If we are creating internal wealth by a greater internal rate of return than the cost of capital, then it might be of benefit. But that's not what we are doing. We are financing Chinese toys, Japanese cars, and government deficit spending. We gotta get real.

A large measure of our current accounts deficit is caused by our poor choices in trade policies. We must link trade agreements to labor rights, environmental standards, and democratic progress. Our partners must build the modern regulatory infrastrutures to monitor and maintain the standards agreed to in our trade agreements.

By pushing our trading partners to move up to our level, we are stopping the current "race to the bottom" where the only factor that matters is the cost of production and lowest labor costs. While higher costs of imports will be somewhat inflationary, in the short term, it will be more than offset by the reduced strain on our economy from financing deficits in trade and in government. Greater domestic production will take up the slack and create jobs and income. And it will in the longer term be in the best interest of our trading partners, as it will help better create the conditions for more stable democracies around the world.

This message brought to you by a proud member of the reality based community....Polemicvol

Edwards speaks for us

2004-07-11T02:42:00.000-04:00

John Edwards' Southern strategy
Following the progressive tradition of Andrew Jackson, the North Carolina senator will challenge the GOP's divisive appeal.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal

July 8, 2004 | John Edwards carries his log cabin with him. The son of a millworker in Robbins, N.C., he bears the memory of his family going to a local restaurant after Sunday church, only to leave when his father realized they could not afford the prices on the menu. It was hardly a contradiction that he became a plaintiff's attorney winning multimillion-dollar decrees against large corporations and becoming wealthy himself, and a U.S. senator, without ever holding a lower office. His unbridled ambition was further apparent in the first-term senator's run for the presidency; his theme of "two Americas" was affirmed, not belied, by his biography, lending him the fervently sought but ineffable political quality of authenticity. By his turns of phrase and obvious pleasure in the arena, he was effortlessly able to make his populist message seem buoyant. In his short career the misimpression that he is a Bambi, a "Breck girl," ridiculed by his opponents for his full mop of hair, has only enabled him to become the fair-haired boy, the favorite Beatle.

Edwards might well have been the Democratic standard-bearer if John Kerry hadn't early locked in the most seasoned operatives in the Iowa caucuses; as it was, Edwards finished second. The Democrats decided to avoid their characteristic factional warfare and to support the figure they believed could win. It was no judgment against Edwards, whose campaign was indefatigable, appealing in small towns and rural areas that had fallen off the map for Democrats, and he was utterly lacking in bitterness when he was defeated. At the big Democratic dinner in March, where former Presidents Clinton and Carter anointed Kerry, Edwards raced to center stage to lift his arms alongside the next nominee -- as public an announcement as he could make that he was campaigning for running mate.

When Kerry chose Edwards their complementary natures were obvious, down to Edwards' succinctness. By virtue of having Edwards, Kerry also acquired his "two Americas" theme as one of his own. But that simply suggests the larger consequences of Edwards.

Just as Edwards underscores the endurance of the Southern Democratic tradition, so does he underscore the dead end of conservatism in the person of Dick Cheney. The thread of the Southern Democratic tradition that now runs through Edwards opposes the one represented by President Bush and Vice President Cheney. These Southern politics have been in conflict since President Andrew Jackson split with his vice president, the original theoretician of Southern reaction, John Calhoun. The Jacksonian slogan was "opportunity for all, special privilege for none." But the Calhoun wing of the party triumphed, leading to the Civil War, eventually the end of Reconstruction, and the long rule of the Bourbons, or local oligarchs, who maintained their power under the rubric of states' rights against federal authority. African-Americans were disenfranchised under Jim Crow, and poor whites, sharecroppers and mill hands like Edwards' father and grandfather were manipulated by racial fears and a hatred of intruding Yankees like Kerry's ancestors.

The Bourbon Democratic Party of the South came to an end with the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Republicans, no longer the party of Abraham Lincoln, absorbed the new conservatism that followed, converting the once solid Democratic South into the solid Republican South. But the Republican project was never as stable as it seemed. In 1976, Jimmy Carter carried most of the South, and twice Bill Clinton broke off important states and moved them into the Democratic column. Now this mantle, worn by Clinton and Carter, and before them Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman, falls on the shoulders of Edwards.

Bush's strategy is a supra-Southern strategy involving the exploitation of patriotism, resentment and fear. The threat, real enough, is external, and it is brandished to maintain the status quo. His compassionate conservatism is an updating of planter paternalism. But his agenda is deregulation, low taxes and hydrocarbons. His politics in the South fundamentally rests on a division between godless them and God-fearing us. Beneath that, he requires a nearly unanimous white vote to compensate for the Democrats' nearly unanimous African-American vote. If more than one-quarter to one-third of the white vote goes into the Democratic coalition, depending on the state, the Republicans lose.

The solid Republican South must have a solid white vote in every Southern and border state without exception to maintain a Republican in the White House. A crack anywhere topples the entire edifice. That fragility accounts for the ferocious struggle in Florida.

The instant Kerry announced Edwards, the Republicans opened an attack on him as a trial lawyer, supposedly the mark against him. Yet in 1998, when Edwards first ran for the Senate in North Carolina, his Republican opponent, a tool of the Jesse Helms political machine named Lauch Faircloth, spent $2 million on advertising depicting Edwards and hate-figure Clinton with Pinocchio noses as "two tobacco-taxing liberal lawyers who are well known for stretching the truth." The ads backfired; Edwards won handily.

In one of his prominent cases, involving a girl left brain-damaged by hospital neglect, Edwards told the jury: "She speaks to you. But now she speaks to you not through a fetal heart monitor strip; she speaks to you through me." The tradition for which Edwards now takes his stand is as open to demagogues as to statesmen, but in the mouth of a statesman it can undo a demagogue.

Senate plays politics with our Nation's Intelligence

2004-07-09T17:04:00.000-04:00

Levin: Intelligence Committee To Focus On Bush
Second Half Of Report May Be Released After Election

POSTED: 2:41 pm EDT July 9, 2004
UPDATED: 3:19 pm EDT July 9, 2004

U.S. Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., says the Senate Intelligence Committee will concentrate on the administration of President George W. Bush for the second half of its report on pre-war intelligence.

The committee released the first half of the report, which states that the Central Intelligence Agency's missteps ended up giving the Bush administration overstated or incorrect conclusions before the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The report cites that the key U.S. assertions leading to the invasion of Iraq -- that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons -- were wrong and based on false or overstated CIA analyses.

The report repeatedly blasts departing CIA Director George Tenet, who has resigned and leaves office this week, accusing him of skewing advice to top policy-makers with the CIA's view and elbowing out dissenting views from other intelligence agencies overseen by the State or Defense departments.

It faulted Tenet for not personally reviewing Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, which contained since-discredited references to Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium in Africa.

Levin, a ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, pointed the blame at the Bush administration when discussing the report on NBC's "Today" show Friday morning.

"I think it's also clear that they were shaping intelligence in order to meet the policy needs of the administration. There can't be much doubt about that," said Levin.

Levin said the report paints only half the picture, focusing critically on the CIA for its assessment that wrongly claimed Iraq was hiding illegal weapons. He added that the report doesn't examine what he called the administration's exaggerations about the intelligence they received.

Levin said Vice President Dick Cheney and other policy makers exaggerated the relationship between Iraq and al-Qaida.

Cheney, who spoke with Local 4's Emery King on Friday, disagreed with the senator.

"I think Senator Levin is wrong. I think he's got a selective memory here with respect to the statements he's made," said Cheney. "The committee interviewed over 200 individuals from the intelligence community. They could find no one out of that entire group that indicated they felt pressure directed by the administration with respect to the kind of intelligence they should produce."

Cheney added that the CIA's position evolved over time as events played out and that his statements closely reflected what the intelligence community told the administration about weapons of mass destruction and the al-Qaida connection.

But Michigan Democratic party Chairman Butch Holowell said Levin was correct in putting some of the blame on the administration.

"I think Senator Levin is right on target when he says it's a whitewash to say that the CIA is the one who failed in their intelligence when it is the White House that failed to: one, establish any links with al-Qaida; two, any imminent nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein; and number three, any weapon of mass destruction," said Holowell.

Levin said the second phase of the report will deal with the Bush administration's conduct. Republicans could hold up the release of that part of the report until after the election, according to reports.

Bush's push for Pakistani pre-election surprise

2004-07-08T22:02:00.000-04:00

PAKISTAN FOR BUSH. July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date: 07.07.04
Issue date: 07.19.04 The New Republic

ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine.

Bush's July surprise in Pakistan

2004-07-08T21:53:00.000-04:00

PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date: 07.07.04
Issue date: 07.19.04 The New Republic

Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable[s]" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.

The Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our asshole."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine.

The New Republic.

Kerry/Edwards...a winning ticket

2004-07-06T15:32:00.000-04:00

What Edwards brings to the Democratic ticket

Finally a No. 2, with swing state appeal

By Liz Marlantes and Sara B. Miller | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor July 7, 2004

WASHINGTON – North Carolina Sen. John Edwards's presence on the Democratic ticket may put the Tarheel State in play, along with a handful of other Southern and border states. But even more important, it gives Sen. John Kerry a powerful new voice in a number of key Midwestern battleground states - and among the small-town, middle-class voters there who are likely to decide the election.

Senator Kerry's selection of his former rival, announced by the Massachusetts senator at a rally in Pittsburgh Tuesday, stands as one of the least surprising vice presidential picks in recent campaign history. Although the process was a closely guarded secret, Mr. Edwards was seen by many as the leading candidate throughout: He campaigned hard for the No. 2 spot, making numerous appearances - and raising piles of cash - on Kerry's behalf.

Polls showed Edwards was the most popular choice among Democratic voters, and he was the only candidate who boosted Kerry's ratings when paired against President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

Indeed, the only factors working against Edwards were rumors of lingering tensions with Kerry in the wake of their primary battle - and the one-term senator's relative lack of experience in foreign affairs, a particular concern in an election cycle dominated by war and terrorism.

Edwards's selection indicates Kerry believes not only that his own military and foreign-policy experience will be enough to cover the ticket as a whole, but also that domestic issues such as the economy and healthcare could prove equally, if not more, important to voters.

At a time when the economy is recovering but many Americans feel less economically secure, the Kerry campaign believes Edwards's populist appeal - as the self-made son of a textile worker - could give the Democratic ticket a boost, particularly in states with struggling manufacturing bases such as Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia. "There's no question John Edwards's personal story has particular appeal to the struggling middle class," says a senior Kerry adviser. "I think he will play well with those kinds of voters."

Rather than reinforcing Kerry's strongest traits, Edwards is likely to fill in certain perceived weaknesses, balancing out the ticket in a number of ways. Indeed, in some respects, the two men come across almost as opposites. Edwards's effortless style on the stump, which drew strong reviews during the primary campaign, stands in contrast to Kerry's stiffer delivery - and had Republicans Tuesday labeling the pick as Kerry's effort to fill in the "charm gap."

And while Edwards, like Kerry, is one of the richest men in the Senate, he comes from a far less elite background. Aides note that while the two men share many of the same values, they arrived at their beliefs through strikingly different circumstances.

"They both have a strong and deep understanding of the value of public service, but they come at it from very different backgrounds," says Steve Jarding, a former Edwards adviser. "Kerry learned it from his parents, traveling the world. Edwards [learned it] from a very different perspective. With far fewer means, he learned how to deal with the struggle of everyday life."

Edwards also injects a youthful flair - he is a decade younger than Kerry - and, as a senator still in his first term, more of an outside-the-Beltway perspective.

The biggest contrast of all, however, may be the fact that Edwards is a Southerner - something that will help give the ticket needed geographic balance.

Analysts say Edwards may not ultimately be able to deliver his home state, although it will certainly become more competitive now. But he could give Kerry a boost in more competitive Southern states such as Louisiana and Arkansas. And as a Southerner, he is likely to give the ticket a more moderate sheen, which could play well in Midwestern swing states.

"Just having a Southern accent is a good thing in the 'purple' states," says Ted Arrington, a political scientist at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. "People assume that a Southerner with an accent is more moderate than a liberal from Massachusetts."

Edwards does bring certain vulnerabilities to the ticket - foremost among them being his lack of foreign-policy experience. In the vice presidential debate this fall, analysts say, Mr. Cheney is likely to focus on this issue. "Whether people can imagine [Edwards] as commander in chief will be one of the issues of the campaign," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "It is one of the risks Kerry took" in picking Edwards.

In addition, Edwards's former career as a trial lawyer, along with the more protectionist stance on trade he took during the primary campaign, could stir up business interests to offer more support for Bush. Tuesday, in the wake of Kerry's announcement, the US Chamber of Commerce was threatening to revoke its neutrality in the race.

But despite opposition from the business community, many Democrats see Edwards's populist appeal as a plus. Although the economy may be growing, they note that other factors are leaving many voters feeling squeezed - from stagnant wages, to rising healthcare costs, to the high price of gasoline. "Edwards can articulate the anxiety around that squeeze better than anyone else," says Anna Greenberg, a Democratic pollster.

Edwards can also tap into rural voters' growing distrust of corporations, she adds. In the wake of recent corporate scandals, Ms. Greenberg says many rural voters have become "deeply anticorporate," and harbor a vision of "CEOs running amok" - a factor that could give Edwards an edge over Mr. Cheney, the former CEO of Halliburton.

True Patriots scorned, who should be honored

2004-07-05T17:04:00.000-04:00

Patriots Scorned
True heroes we should be honoringby David Corn

Patriotism is typically defined as love of country. And love, it is said, is blind. No wonder then that those who dare to address or seek out inconvenient and uncomfortable truths about the government often go unrecognized as true patriots or, worse, are denounced by others who would (if they could) turn the flag into camouflage for official malfeasance.

Several courageous citizens have recently tried to keep the U.S. government honest and have been slammed and slimed for their efforts. Here are some of the folks who should be revered across the land as American heroes, but red-white-and-blue conservatives have made them figures of controversy and targets for scorn or revenge:

Kristin Breitweiser, Patty Casazza, Mindy Kleinberg and Lorie Van Auken, a group of 9/11 widows in New Jersey, have pushed the government to tell the full story of the horrific attacks that killed their husbands. It is due to their relentless endeavors — and those of other 9/11 relatives — that George W. Bush, after a year of resistance, caved and established the commission to investigate the September 11 attacks.

And since the 9/11 inquiry began in early 2003, Breitweiser and her colleagues have been stalwart watchdogs, pressing the commission to hold open hearings and to get the job done right. When the commission, earlier this year, announced it needed a few extra months to finish its work, Bush and House Speaker Denny Hastert said no. The widows went ballistic and forced these powerful men to retreat. And it was the outcry of the 9/11 widows that forced National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to testify publicly before the commission after the administration first refused to let her do so.

For their noble efforts, Breitweiser and the other widows have been hammered by the twin towers of the right: Rush Limbaugh and The Wall Street Journal editorial page. On March 9, Limbaugh blasted the widows as shills for the “Democratic Party machine” and called them “Democratic campaign consultants, not grieving family members” who were “poisoned by their hate.” In an open letter to Limbaugh, Breitweiser, whose husband, Ron, worked on the 94th floor of the South Tower, noted that she is not a Democrat, that she was not, as Limbaugh had claimed, “schooled” in what to say by the Democratic Party, and that she and her husband both voted for Bush in 2000.

A few weeks later, Dorothy Rabinowitz, a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, published a rather long op-ed that took another shot at Breitweiser and her comrades. Breitweiser’s chief offense, in the eyes of the rabid Rabinowitz, was suggesting that “President Bush and his workers . . . were the individuals that failed my husband and the 3,000 people that day.” Given that the preliminary reports of the 9/11 commission and the report of the congressional intelligence committees have detailed numerous U.S. government screwups that made it much easier for the plotters to succeed, Breitweiser had a point. Yet Rabinowitz mocked the widows as lost-in-grief purveyors of “false and irrelevant” opinions about 9/11.

When Breitweiser and her three associates tried to get the Journal to publish a piece they had written, Rabinowitz mistakenly sent Breitweiser an e-mail in which she called her and the widows “women clearly in the grip of the delusion that they know something.”

While attending a 9/11 commission meeting in May, Breitweiser remarked, “What bothers me is, if you disagree with someone like Dorothy Rabinowitz or Rush Limbaugh, you are attacked as being political. We live in a democracy and should be able to have healthy, respectful debate.” She noted that she had asked Limbaugh to debate the issues with her on air. Her offer was rejected.

Our second winner, on this July Fourth, of the truth-seeking-is-for-suckers award goes to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. Last summer, you will recall, the president was in trouble for having made what seemed to be a false charge in his January 2003 State of the Union address: that Iraq had been shopping for uranium in Africa. With that allegation, Bush was suggesting that Saddam Hussein was close to acquiring a nuclear weapon. Months later, as critics accused Bush of hyping an untrue allegation, the White House sought to defend its use of this charge. To set the record straight, Wilson revealed that a year before Bush’s speech, he had been sent by the CIA to Niger to investigate this charge and had reported back (as had other U.S. government emissaries) that it was highly improbable.

After Wilson’s disclosure, the Bush White House gave up and admitted the allegation should not have been in Bush’s speech. But days later, two administration sources told conservative columnist Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife, Valerie, was a CIA operative working on weapons of mass destruction. Novak published this factoid, and the undercover career of Valerie Wilson (a.k.a. Valerie Plame) was ruined. Moreover, national security was harmed, and possibly federal law prohibiting government officials from identifying covert U.S. officials was broken. (The Justice Department is still investigating the leak, and Bush was recently questioned by the prosecutors in charge of the case.)

One element of this tale is not so well-known. Before the Iraq war, Wilson was a fierce opponent of last year’s U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. As the last acting ambassador in Iraq before the first Persian Gulf war, he had taken a confrontational stance against Hussein and had supported the 1991 war. This made him a particularly credible voice of opposition this time around; he was one of the few establishment-type figures in Washington who passionately decried Bush’s rush to war. Throughout the protracted run-up to the war, Wilson knew that Bush had misled the country in his State of the Union speech. But he did not put this information to any advantage. Instead, he privately sent a message to the White House: You ought to correct the record on this.

Former diplomat that he was, he tried to go through channels; he did not want to embarrass the president, even though he disagreed with him. Only after it seemed the White House was sticking to the uranium-in-Africa charge — and this was months after the war was launched — did Wilson go public. Because Wilson decided to divulge the truth, at least two persons in the Bush administration (and maybe more) went after his wife, endangered her secret anti-WMD work (and perhaps that of her CIA colleagues) and impaired U.S. national security. And when Wilson complained about this payback, he was widely assailed by Republicans for being a — gasp! — Democratic partisan.

Then there’s Joseph Darby. His is the saddest story of the lot. He is the 24-year-old Army reservist who worked at Abu Ghraib prison. After hearing that there had been a shooting at the prison’s so-called “hard site,” he asked a military-police officer named Charles Graner Jr. if he had any photos of the cell where the shooting had occurred. Graner handed him two CDs of photographs. They contained much more than pictures of the cell; there were hundreds of photographs of Iraqi prisoners being abused.

Darby told investigators that Graner had said to him, “The Christian in me says it’s wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, ‘I love to make a grown man piss himself.’” Darby slipped an anonymous note reporting the abuse under the door of investigators working for the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division. He then came forward and gave a sworn statement. “It was just wrong,” Darby told the investigators. “I knew I had to do something.”

Darby’s actions triggered the investigation that led to the prison abuse scandal. But he has not been widely hailed for this courageous whistle-blowing. When a Washington Post reporter recently visited Darby’s hometown of Corriganville, Maryland, his neighbors in this mountain community rebuked him for being a snitch. His relatives have refused interviews; some have slipped out of town. The New York Post ran a story about Darby beneath the headline “Hero a Two-Timing Rat.” The article focused on his personal life — as if that matters much — but the title sent another message. According to the Washington Post, “The Army says it’s considering giving Darby a medal, although Army spokesman Dov Schwartz said it can’t say when.”

There are no signs that the military is rushing to honor Darby, who is unlikely to receive a hero’s welcome in his hometown anytime soon. By the way, it took the Army 30 years to honor a whistleblower who reported to his commanders the My Lai massacre in Vietnam.

America, of thee I sing. But not the sour notes. Darby, Wilson, and Breitweiser and the 9/11 widows all acted on the assumption that serving the truth is the obligation of a good citizen. Each has learned the hard way that not all of their fellow Americans agree with this radical idea.

Commission report demolishes Bush claim

2004-07-03T21:44:00.000-04:00

Report demolishes claim

BY JOHN B. QUIGLEY
quigley.2@osu.edu

The 9/11 Commission's debunking of a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein puts the last nail in the coffin of the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq.

When Colin Powell made his now infamous presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, explaining why Hussein was a threat, he alleged such links. He suggested that Hussein in some unspecified way colluded or strategized with al Qaeda.

Like his allegations to the Security Council about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Powell's allegation of an Iraqi/al Qaeda connection turned out to be fantasy.

The falsity of the weapons allegation became apparent after U.S. forces unsuccessfully scoured Iraq after invading. But the falsity of the allegation of an Iraq/al Qaeda link had not been demonstrated until the 9/11 Commission hearings.

The administration relied heavily on reports of an April 2001 meeting in Prague between Iraqi officials and 9/11 hijack-pilot Mohamad Atta. The commission finds no evidence that such a meeting took place; it believes that Atta was in the United States at the time. The administration has revealed no other information to substantiate a Hussein-al Qaeda connection.

The commission pointed out that politically Hussein and Osama bin Laden are on different wavelengths. Bin Laden relies on his fundamentalist interpretation of Islam; Hussein was always denounced by fundamentalist Islamists as a secularist who suppressed Islam in Iraq. The commission even recounts aid by bin Laden to Islamist opponents of Hussein in northern Iraq.

The administration is not asserting that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. It had already conceded that it has no evidence of that. The issue is whether there were contacts between Hussein and al Qaeda that showed a working relationship. The administration relied on that allegation as a reason for war. The commission says that there were no contacts that can be called ``collaborative.''

Incredibly, the administration is challenging the commission's finding, still claiming a Hussein-al Qaeda relationship. Vice President Dick Cheney says that he has information that the commission did not see, but he won't say what it is. No one accuses the commission of doing a slipshod job.

The administration realizes that its claim of a Hussein-al Qaeda connection is their last possible argument that Iraq presented the kind of danger that President Bush claimed for going to war.

Unless Cheney discloses credible information, however, the administration's record of prevarication on Iraq leaves little choice but to conclude that he has none.

Extended tours of duty

With the public increasingly weary of the Iraq war and skeptical about the reasons, the administration is grasping at straws. Forced to extend tours of duty, the administration is desperate for reasons to give parents why their children should be sent to a country where they face death from random bombings. Administration officials find it harder and harder to tell parents with a straight face that their children are defending America.

The commission's report comes as opinion in Iraq has turned sharply against us. The abuse of Iraqi detainees has inflamed Arab opinion. The claim that we are bringing democracy is greeted with derision. Iraqi children dance to rejoice when U.S. servicemen are blown up in tanks.

The report shows that the administration had no case for going to war in Iraq. The administration should face the truth.

John B. Quigley is a professor of law at Ohio State University.

An Administration foundering, staggering, and stumbling

2004-07-01T23:30:00.000-04:00

Scandals seen as hallmark of White House under pressure

By Ken Fireman
Washington Bureau - Newsday

July 1, 2004

The vice president upbraids a senator on the floor of the chamber for what he calls personal attacks, then ends the conversation with a transitive verb straight from the barnyard.

A chief architect of the Iraq war refers to journalists covering the conflict as cowardly rumor-mongers during a congressional hearing, and is forced to apologize the following day.

The president himself finds it necessary to be questioned by a special prosecutor probing the outing of a covert CIA operative by someone in the administration bent on political retaliation.

The White House, faced with a prisoner abuse scandal that won't go away, is forced into the ultimate embarrassment of a Clinton-style document dump - only to discover that the new material only fuels the controversy.

Washington-watchers have seen these tropisms before, and they are not symptoms of health. They are the hallmarks of an administration under increasing pressure, and starting to stagger and stumble under the accumulated weight.

Indeed, the best news for President George W. Bush in the recent flood of poll numbers is the fact that he is still essentially even with Democratic opponent John Kerry despite all the recent setbacks and missteps.

But Bush's good news begins and ends there. A new CBS- New York Times poll puts his approval rating at 42 percent, the lowest of his presidency.

Then there is what might be called the poll of the box office. Movie-goers are lining up to watch "Fahrenheit 911," which portrays the president as clueless, duplicitous and corrupt.

Most worrisome for Bush is the finding in the latest Gallup poll that for the first time a majority of Americans say it was a mistake to go to war in Iraq. It took three years for a majority to turn against the war in Vietnam - but once that happened, Gallup notes, support for the war never regained 50 percent.

Even the relatively good news from Iraq has not come unalloyed. The United States turned over formal sovereignty to an interim government two days early; but the reason for the early handoff, to forestall insurgent attacks, and the setting, in a heavily fortified compound, hardly inspires confidence.

As events in Iraq and elsewhere have driven its support down, an administration that once prided itself on discipline and sure-footedness has begun to appear wobbly and off-balance. Like a metal structure subjected to increasing stress over time, the damage is gradual rather than catastrophic - but difficult to reverse.

One error that stands out as especially costly is the decision last year to blame the CIA for the president's inaccurate claim that Iraq sought to buy uranium in Africa. Picking a fight with the agency is never a good idea given its capacity for self-protective retaliation, and the administration has paid a stiff price. The latest installment came last month when the CIA cleared a new book by a senior official calling the Iraq war a blunder.

The handling of the prisoner abuse mess has been equally ham-handed. The old rule of get the bad news out early, get it over with quickly and put your own spin on it was ignored for weeks. Finally, last week, the White House swallowed its pride and resorted to a favorite Clinton tactic: releasing hundreds of pages of documents so late in the day that reporters had time for only a limited look before deadline.

If the document dump was an embarrassing reminder of an administration the current White House loves to hate, Bush's interview with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald must have been as well. Bill Clinton spent most of his presidency dogged by special prosecutors. Bush ended every rally in 2000 by vowing to restore "the honor and dignity" of the presidency. For Bush to face a new incarnation of this presidential nemesis could not have been pleasant.

If the warning signals of a foundering administration are visible, the outcome of the voyage is far from certain. Other presidents have stumbled badly amid adversity only to right themselves - think Clinton winning easy re-election in 1996 just two years after crushing defeats in Congress and at the polls.

But once a perception of fecklessness settles in around an administration, it is difficult to reverse - especially in the fevered climate of a campaign. It is not clear that such a turning point has been reached. But the extraordinary polarization of the electorate gives Bush little margin for error, and recent events do not project an image of an administration confidently marching toward success.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc. |

White (House) Lies

2004-06-25T22:51:00.000-04:00

By David Corn, AlterNet. Posted June 22, 2004.

In a new edition of his book, David Corn wonders how civil should debate be if the president is not telling the truth about life-and-death issues.

Why is it so difficult to hold a president accountable for not telling the truth? It has been over a year since President George W. Bush took the country to war by falsely claiming that intelligence "leaves no doubt" that Saddam Hussein possessed significant weapons of mass destruction, but until recently Bush has enjoyed better poll numbers on integrity than John Kerry. Moreover, as the Senate Intelligence Committee prepares to release a report that will blast the CIA for committing serious errors while preparing the prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMDs -- that is, for overstating the case -- Bush's defenders are ready to make outgoing CIA director George Tenet the fall guy, even though Bush's before-the-war assertions about Hussein's unconventional weapons went much beyond what the CIA errantly reported. It's indisputable: Bush routinely exaggerated the CIA's exaggerations. Yet the nation -- or the lot of political commentators -- still argues over what should be a proven point: Bush showed little regard for the truth in his campaign for war. And a highly charged question continues to be debated: Is Bush a liar?

Most recently, this argument heated up when the independent, bipartisan 9/11 committee declared it had found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden. In reply, Bush and Vice-President Dick Cheney continued to insist there had been. In brief remarks to reporters, Bush declared, "We did say [before the war] there were numerous contacts between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda; for example, Iraqi intelligence officers met with bin Laden, the head of al Qaeda, in Sudan." Those contacts, Bush did not say, had occurred in 1994, and the 9/11 commission had reported nothing came of them. Before the war, Bush had gone much further and had said of Hussein, "He's a threat because he is dealing with al Qaeda." Note the verb tense. To justify the coming invasion, Bush proclaimed that Hussein was currently in league with al Qaeda. But in response to the 9/11 commission, he referred to decade-old contacts. Wasn't this strong evidence that Bush had spoken dishonestly before the war?

Bush's advocates have done a good job of countering the general accusation that the president is a liar. I know, because I have been on the receiving end of their spin and obfuscation. In September 2003, a spate of books critical of Bush were published and landed on the best-seller list. Three had the word "lies" in the title, including my own, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception. At the time, left-of-center advocacy groups -- most notably MoveOn.org -- initiated public campaigns questioning Bush's truthfulness. Bush's defenders fought back, dismissing these books as irrational expressions of a phenomenon they belittled as Bush hatred. On CNN's Crossfire, conservative pundit Tucker Carlson described the anti-Bush books as written to cater "to the paranoid and craziness of the far left" and "selling because the Democratic Party has gone completely insane with Bush hatred." Conservative columnist David Brooks opined, "The core threat to democracy is not in the White House, it's the haters themselves."

Even non-ideological writers bemoaned the anti-Bush books as the latest indication that the nation's embittered and deteriorating political culture was degenerating further. Time magazine pointed to my book as more evidence of "the rise of the anger industry." New York Times Magazine's James Traub observed, "Hatred is delicious. But the sudden rash of jeremiads and their stunning popularity raises a question: Why are so many liberals, including sane and sober ones, granting themselves permission to hate the president?.... Buying a book that has 'Bush' and 'lie' in the title...is a deeply cathartic, ideology-affirming experience. It's satisfying; but I don't see how it can be a good thing, either for public debate or ultimately for the electoral prospects of the Democrats, to have liberals descend to the level of rabid conservatives." Another New York Times Magazine writer, Matt Bai, took the same line: "A new strand of vitriol has consumed the Bush-hating left.... The new leftist screeds seem to solidify a rising political culture of incivility and overstatement.... The various expressions of liberal fury are a direct imitation of what the right has been doing for more than a decade.... Hate isn't much of a message."

But these critics have overlooked the main point: the case against Bush. The essential issue is not whether Bush detractors hate the man or are angry with him. What matters is whether their indictments are persuasive and well-founded. After all, if Bush has indeed misled the public about his far-ranging tax cuts, global warming, homeland security, stem cells research, the reasons for war and other serious topics, isn't anger an appropriate response? But often commentators (mainly of the right-wing variant) have preferred to focus on what they perceive to be the emotions of Bush's antagonists. It has been an easy way to dismiss the bill of particulars. They self-servingly decry the decline of civil debate and avoid the question: How civil should debate be if the president of the United States is not telling the truth about life-and-death issues? (One exception is columnist George Will, who has at least urged Bush to acknowledge his untrue prewar assertions about the weapons of mass destruction.)

Other Bush-backers have tried to diminish the case against Bush by adopting an everybody-does-it stance. In the conservative Weekly Standard magazine, Andrew Ferguson observed, "If presidents have been liars from George Washington to Chester A. Arthur to Bill Clinton....this in turn raises the fatal suspicion that maybe George W. Bush isn't so bad." Such reasoning is a weak defense of Bush. The more sophisticated attack comes from Bush-critic critics who claim that Bush's "lies" are not really lies, that they are fudge-able policy statements common to politicians. And more than one conservative radio talk-show host has said to me that if Bush believes his spin then it cannot be considered a lie. After all, didn't it seem as if Bush truly thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

This defense of Bush does not take into account that a president has the responsibility to ascertain the truth and do his best to guarantee that the information he shares with the public is as accurate as can be. Too often, Bush has embraced and put forward misinformation to support and advance his policy desires. Did he know the information was false? That is not an excuse. In the case of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, Bush, according to the White House, did not even bother to read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq. Produced in October 2002, this 90-page report summarized the intelligence community's information on Iraq. Had Bush perused it, he would have seen that the evidence regarding Iraq's WMDs was often inconclusive and disputed by various US intelligence analysts and that the overall picture of Hussein's WMD capabilities was unclear. And Bush would have had good reason to question his own melodramatic, black-and-white statements about Iraq's WMDs.

If a president recklessly abandons his obligation to determine whether he is in possession of good, solid information, and then accepts incorrect or misleading material and presents it to the public because doing so serves his own ends, he is engaged in a deceptive practice that can be considered the functional equivalent of lying. Bush has yet to face any consequences for promoting deceptions crucial to his agenda, and he has not assumed responsibility for actively misleading the American public and the world. So the debate over his truth-defying ways will continue until Election Day.

David Corn, Washington editor of The Nation, is author of the best-selling 'The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception.' This article is excerpted from the new and expanded paperback edition of the book.

Al Gore's message to America

2004-06-25T01:35:00.000-04:00

GORE TEXT

JUNE 24, 2004

When we Americans first began, our biggest danger was clearly in view: we knew from the bitter experience with King George III that the most serious threat to democracy is usually the accumulation of too much power in the hands of an Executive, whether he be a King or a president. Our ingrained American distrust of concentrated power has very little to do with the character or persona of the individual who wields that power. It is the power itself that must be constrained, checked, dispersed and carefully balanced, in order to ensure the survival of freedom. In addition, our founders taught us that public fear is the most dangerous enemy of democracy because under the right circumstances it can trigger the temptation of those who govern themselves to surrender that power to someone who promises strength and offers safety, security and freedom from fear.

It is an extraordinary blessing to live in a nation so carefully designed to protect individual liberty and safeguard self-governance and free communication. But if George Washington could see the current state of his generation's handiwork and assess the quality of our generation's stewardship at the beginning of this twenty-first century, what do you suppose he would think about the proposition that our current president claims the unilateral right to arrest and imprison American citizens indefinitely without giving them the right to see a lawyer or inform their families of their whereabouts, and without the necessity of even charging them with any crime. All that is necessary, according to our new president is that he - the president - label any citizen an "unlawful enemy combatant," and that will be sufficient to justify taking away that citizen's liberty - even for the rest of his life, if the president so chooses. And there is no appeal.

What would Thomas Jefferson think of the curious and discredited argument from our Justice Department that the president may authorize what plainly amounts to the torture of prisoners - and that any law or treaty, which attempts to constrain his treatment of prisoners in time of war is itself a violation of the constitution our founders put together.

What would Benjamin Franklin think of President Bush's assertion that he has the inherent power - even without a declaration of war by the Congress - to launch an invasion of any nation on Earth, at any time he chooses, for any reason he wishes, even if that nation poses no imminent threat to the United States.

How long would it take James Madison to dispose of our current President's recent claim, in Department of Justice legal opinions, that he is no longer subject to the rule of law so long as he is acting in his role as Commander in Chief.

I think it is safe to say that our founders would be genuinely concerned about these recent developments in American democracy and that they would feel that we are now facing a clear and present danger that has the potential to threaten the future of the American experiment.

Shouldn't we be equally concerned? And shouldn't we ask ourselves how we have come to this point?

Even though we are now attuned to orange alerts and the potential for terrorist attacks, our founders would almost certainly caution us that the biggest threat to the future of the America we love is still the endemic challenge that democracies have always faced whenever they have appeared in history - a challenge rooted in the inherent difficulty of self governance and the vulnerability to fear that is part of human nature. Again, specifically, the biggest threat to America is that we Americans will acquiesce in the slow and steady accumulation of too much power in the hands of one person.

Having painstakingly created the intricate design of America, our founders knew intimately both its strengths and weaknesses, and during their debates they not only identified the accumulation of power in the hands of the executive as the long-term threat which they considered to be the most serious, but they also worried aloud about one specific scenario in which this threat might become particularly potent - that is, when war transformed America's president into our commander in chief, they worried that his suddenly increased power might somehow spill over its normal constitutional boundaries and upset the delicate checks and balances they deemed so crucial to the maintenance of liberty.

That is precisely why they took extra care to parse the war powers in the constitution, assigning the conduct of war and command of the troops to the president, but retaining for the Congress the crucial power of deciding whether or not, and when, our nation might decide to go war.

Indeed, this limitation on the power of the executive to make war was seen as crucially important. James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "The constitution supposes, what the history of all governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question of war in the legislature."

In more recent decades, the emergence of new weapons that virtually eliminate the period of time between the decision to go to war and the waging of war have naturally led to a reconsideration of the exact nature of the executive's war-making power. But the practicalities of modern warfare which necessarily increase the war powers of the President at the expense of Congress do not render moot the concerns our founders had so long ago that the making of war by the president - when added to his other powers - carries with it the potential for unbalancing the careful design of our constitution, and in the process, threatening our liberty.

They were greatly influenced - far more than we can imagine - by a careful reading of the history and human dramas surrounding the democracies of ancient Greece and the Roman republic. They knew, for example, that democracy disappeared in Rome when Caesar crossed the Rubicon in violation of the Senate's long prohibition against a returning general entering the city while still in command of military forces. Though the Senate lingered in form and was humored for decades, when Caesar impoliticly combined his military commander role with his chief executive role, the Senate - and with it the Republic - withered away. And then for all intents and purposes, the great dream of democracy disappeared from the face of the Earth for seventeen centuries, until its rebirth in our land.

Symbolically, President Bush has been attempting to conflate his commander-in-chief role and his head of government role to maximize the power people are eager to give those who promise to defend them against active threats. But as he does so, we are witnessing some serious erosion of the checks and balances that have always maintained a healthy democracy in America.

In Justice Jackson's famous concurring opinion in the Youngstown Steel case in the 1950's, the single most important Supreme Court case on the subject of what powers are inherent to the commander in chief in a time of war, he wrote, "The example of such unlimited executive power that must have most impressed the forefathers was the prerogative exercised by George III, and the description of its evils in the declaration of independence leads me to doubt that they created their new Executive in their image...and if we seek instruction from our own times, we can match it only from the Executive governments we disparagingly describe as totalitarian."

I am convinced that our founders would counsel us today that the greatest challenge facing our republic is not terrorism but how we react to terrorism, and not war, but how we manage our fears and achieve security without losing our freedom. I am also convinced that they would warn us that democracy itself is in grave danger if we allow any president to use his role as commander in chief to rupture the careful balance between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Our current president has gone to war and has come back into "the city" and declared that our nation is now in a permanent state of war, which he says justifies his reinterpretation of the Constitution in ways that increase his personal power at the expense of Congress, the courts, and every individual citizen.

We must surrender some of our traditional American freedoms, he tells us, so that he may have sufficient power to protect us against those who would do us harm. Public fear remains at an unusually high level almost three years after we were attacked on September 11th, 2001. In response to those devastating attacks, the president properly assumed his role as commander in chief and directed a military invasion of the land in which our attackers built their training camps, were harbored and planned their assault. But just as the tide of battle was shifting decisively in our favor, the commander in chief made a controversial decision to divert a major portion of our army to invade another country that, according to the best evidence compiled in a new, exhaustive, bi-partisan study, posed no imminent threat to us and had nothing to do with the attack against us.

As the main body of our troops were redeployed for the new invasion, those who organized the attacks against us escaped and many of them are still at large. Indeed, their overall numbers seem to have grown considerably because our invasion of the country that did not pose any imminent threat to us was perceived in their part of the world as a gross injustice, and the way in which we have conducted that war further fueled a sense of rage against the United States in those lands and, according to several studies, has stimulated a wave of new recruits for the terrorist group that attacked us and still wishes us harm.

A little over a year ago, when we launched the war against this second country, Iraq, President Bush repeatedly gave our people the clear impression that Iraq was an ally and partner to the terrorist group that attacked us, al Qaeda, and not only provided a geographic base for them but was also close to providing them weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear bombs. But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind. And, of course, over the course of this past year we had previously found out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. So now, the President and the Vice President are arguing with this commission, and they are insisting that the commission is wrong and they are right, and that there actually was a working co-operation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

The problem for the President is that he doesn't have any credible evidence to support his claim, and yet, in spite of that, he persists in making that claim vigorously. So I would like to pause for a moment to address the curious question of why President Bush continues to make this claim that most people know is wrong. And I think it's particularly important because it is closely connected to the questions of constitutional power with which I began this speech, and will profoundly affect how that power is distributed among our three branches of government.

To begin with, our founders wouldn't be the least bit surprised at what the modern public opinion polls all tell us about why it's so important particularly for President Bush to keep the American people from discovering that what he told them about the linkage between Iraq and al Qaeda isn't true. Among these Americans who still believe there is a linkage, there remains very strong support for the President's decision to invade Iraq. But among those who accept the commission's detailed finding that there is no connection, support for the war in Iraq dries up pretty quickly.

And that's understandable, because if Iraq had nothing to do with the attack or the organization that attacked us, then that means the President took us to war when he didn't have to. Almost nine hundred of our soldiers have been killed, and almost five thousand have been wounded.

Thus, for all these reasons, President Bush and Vice President Cheney have decided to fight to the rhetorical death over whether or not there's a meaningful connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. They think that if they lose that argument and people see the truth, then they'll not only lose support for the controversial decision to go to war, but also lose some of the new power they've picked up from the Congress and the courts, and face harsh political consequences at the hands of the American people. As a result, President Bush is now intentionally misleading the American people by continuing to aggressively and brazenly assert a linkage between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

If he is not lying, if they genuinely believe that, that makes them unfit in battle with al Qaeda. If they believe these flimsy scraps, then who would want them in charge? Are they too dishonest or too gullible? Take your pick.

But the truth is gradually emerging in spite of the President's determined dissembling. Listen, for example, to this editorial from the Financial Times: "There was nothing intrinsically absurd about the WMD fears, or ignoble about the opposition to Saddam's tyranny - however late Washington developed this. The purported link between Baghdad and al Qaeda, by contrast, was never believed by anyone who knows Iraq and the region. It was and is nonsense."

Of course the first rationale presented for the war was to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which turned out not to exist. Then the rationale was to liberate Iraqis and the Middle East from tyranny, but our troops were not greeted with the promised flowers and are now viewed as an occupying force by 92% of Iraqis, while only 2% see them as liberators.

But right from the start, beginning very soon after the attacks of 9/11, President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind. He repeatedly used this device in a highly disciplined manner to create a false impression in the minds of the American people that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11. Usually he was pretty tricky in his exact wording. Indeed, Bush's consistent and careful artifice is itself evidence that he knew full well that he was telling an artful and important lie -- visibly circumnavigating the truth over and over again as if he had practiced how to avoid encountering the truth. But as I will document in a few moments, he and Vice President Cheney also sometimes departed from their tricky wording and resorted to statements were clearly outright falsehoods. In any case, by the time he was done, public opinion polls showed that fully 70% of the American people had gotten the message he wanted them to get, and had been convinced that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

The myth that Iraq and al Qaeda were working together was no accident - the President and Vice President deliberately ignored warnings before the war from international intelligence services, the CIA, and their own Pentagon that the claim was false. Europe's top terrorism investigator said in 2002, "We have found no evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. If there were such links, we would have found them. But we have found no serious connections whatsoever." A classified October 2002 CIA report given to the White House directly undercut the Iraq-al Qaeda claim. Top officials in the Pentagon told reporters in 2002 that the rhetoric being used by President Bush and Vice President Cheney was "an exaggeration."

And at least some honest voices within the President's own party admitted as such. Senator Chuck Hagel, a decorated war hero who sits on the Foreign Relations Committee, said point blank, "Saddam is not in league with al Qaeda...I have not seen any intelligence that would lead me to connect Saddam Hussein with al Qaeda."

But those voices did not stop the deliberate campaign to mislead America. Over the course of a year, the President and Vice President used carefully crafted language to scare Americans into believing there was an imminent threat from an Iraq-armed al Qaeda.

In the fall of 2002, the President told the country "You can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam" and that the "true threat facing our country is an al Qaeda-type network trained and armed by Saddam." At the same time, Vice President Cheney was repeating his claim that "there is overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government."

By the Spring, Secretary of State Powell was in front of the United Nations claiming a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al-Qaeda terrorist network."

But after the invasion, no ties were found. In June of 2003, the United Nations Security Council's al Qaeda monitoring agency told reporters his extensive investigation had found no evidence linking the Iraqi regime to al Qaeda. By August, three former Bush administration national security and intelligence officials admitted that the evidence used to make the Iraq-al Qaeda claim was "tenuous, exaggerated and often at odds with the conclusion of key intelligence agencies." And earlier this year, Knight-Ridder newspapers reported "Senior U.S. officials now say there never was any evidence" of a connection.

So when the bipartisan 9/11 commission issued its report finding "no credible evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection, it should not have caught the White House off guard. Yet instead of the candor Americans need and deserve from their leaders, there have been more denials and more insistence without evidence. Vice President Cheney insisted even this week that "there clearly was a relationship" and that there is "overwhelming evidence." Even more shocking, Cheney offered this disgraceful question: "Was Iraq involved with al-Qaeda in the attack on 9/11? We don't know." He then claimed that he "probably" had more information than the commission, but has so far refused to provide anything to the commission other than more insults.

The President was even more brazen. He dismissed all questions about his statements by saying "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al Qaeda, because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." He provided no evidence.

Friends of the administration tried mightily to rehabilitate their cherished but shattered linkage. John Lehman, one of the Republicans on the commission, offered what sounded like new evidence that a Saddam henchman had attended an Al Qaeda meeting. But within hours, the commissions files yielded definitive evidence that it was another man with a similar name - ironically capturing the near-miss quality of Bush's entire symbolic argument.

They have such an overwhelming political interest in sustaining the belief in the minds of the American people that Hussein was in partnership with bin Laden that they dare not admit the truth lest they look like complete fools for launching our country into a reckless, discretionary war against a nation that posed no immediate threat to us whatsoever. But the damage they have done to our country is not limited to misallocation of military economic political resources. Whenever a chief executive spends prodigious amounts of energy convincing people of lies, he damages the fabric of democracy, and the belief in the fundamental integrity of our self-government.

That creates a need for control over the flood of bad news, bad policies and bad decisions also explains their striking attempts to control news coverage.

To take the most recent example, Vice President Cheney was clearly ready to do battle with the news media when he went on CNBC earlier this week to attack news coverage of the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that Iraq did not work with Al Qaeda. He lashed out at the New York Times for having the nerve to print a headline saying the 9/11 commission "finds no Qaeda-Iraq Tie" - a clear statement of the obvious - and said there is no "fundamental split here now between what the president said and what the commission said." He tried to deny that he had personally been responsible for helping to create the false impression of linkage between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Ironically, his interview ended up being fodder for the Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Stewart played Cheney's outright denial that he had ever said that representatives of Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence met in Prague. Then Stewart froze Cheney's image and played the exact video clip in which Cheney had indeed directly claimed linkage between the two, catching him on videotape in a lie. At that point Stewart said, addressing himself to Cheney's frozen image on the television screen, "It's my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire."

Dan Rather says that post-9/11 patriotism has stifled journalists from asking government officials "the toughest of the tough questions." Rather went so far as to compare Administration efforts to intimidate the press to "necklacing" in apartheid South Africa, while acknowledging it as "an obscene comparison." "The fear is that you will be necklaced here (in the U.S.), you will have a flaming tire of lack of patriotism put around your neck," Rather explained. It was CBS, remember, that withheld the Abu Ghraib photographs from the American people for two weeks at the request of the Bush Administration.

Donald Rumsfeld has said that criticism of the Administration's policy "makes it complicated and more difficult" to fight the war. CNN's Christiane Amanpour said on CNBC last September, "I think the press was muzzled and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say but certainly television, and perhaps to a certain extent my station, was intimidated by the Administration."

The Administration works closely with a network of "rapid response" digital Brown Shirts who work to pressure reporters and their editors for "undermining support for our troops." Paul Krugman, the New York Times columnist, was one of the first journalists to regularly expose the President's consistent distortions of the facts. Krugman writes, "Let's not overlook the role of intimidation. After 9/11, if you were thinking of saying anything negative of the President...you had to expect right-wing pundits and publications to do all they could to ruin your reputation.

Bush and Cheney are spreading purposeful confusion while punishing reporters who stand in the way. It is understandably difficult for reporters and journalistic institutions to resist this pressure, which, in the case of individual journalists, threatens their livelihoods, and in the case of the broadcasters can lead to other forms of economic retribution. But resist they must, because without a press able to report "without fear or favor" our democracy will disappear.

Recently, the media has engaged in some healthy self-criticism of the way it allowed the White House to mislead the public into war under false pretenses. We are dependent on the media, especially the broadcast media, to never let this happen again. We must help them resist this pressure for everyone's sake, or we risk other wrong-headed decisions based upon false and misleading impressions.

We are left with an unprecedented, high-intensity conflict every single day between the ideological illusions upon which this administration's policies have been based and the reality of the world in which the American people live their lives.

When you boil it all down to precisely what went wrong with the Bush Iraq policy, it is actually fairly simple: he adopted an ideologically driven view of Iraq that was tragically at odds with reality. Everything that has gone wrong is in one way or another the result of a spectacular and violent clash between the bundle of misconceptions that he gullibly consumed and the all-too-painful reality that our troops and contractors and diplomats and taxpayers have encountered. Of course, there have been several other collisions between President Bush's ideology and America's reality. To take the most prominent example, the transformation of a $5 trillion surplus into a $4 trillion deficit is in its own way just as spectacular a miscalculation as the Iraq war.

But there has been no more bizarre or troubling manifestation of how seriously off track this President's policies have taken America than the two profound shocks to our nation's conscience during the last month. First came the extremely disturbing pictures that document strange forms of physical and sexual abuse - and even torture and murder - by some of our soldiers against people they captured as prisoners in Iraq. And then, the second shock came just last week, with strange and perverted legal memoranda from inside the administration, which actually sought to justify torture and to somehow provide a legal rationale for bizarre and sadistic activities conducted in the name of the American people, which, according to any reasonable person, would be recognized as war crimes. In making their analysis, the administration lawyers concluded that the President, whenever he is acting in his role as commander in chief, is above and immune from the "rule of law." At least we don't have to guess what our founders would have to say about this bizarre and un-American theory.

By the middle of this week, the uproar caused by the disclosure of this legal analysis had forced the administration to claim they were throwing the memo out and it was, "irrelevant and overbroad." But no one in the administration has said that the reasoning was wrong. And in fact, a DOJ spokesman says they stand by the tortured definition of torture. In addition the broad analysis regarding the commander-in-chief powers has not been disavowed. And the view of the memo - that it was within commander-in-chief power to order any interrogation techniques necessary to extract information - most certainly contributed to the atmosphere that led to the atrocities committed against the Iraqis at Abu Ghraib. We also know that President Bush rewarded the principle author of this legal monstrosity with a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals. President Bush, meanwhile, continues to place the blame for the horrific consequences of his morally obtuse policies on the young privates and corporals and sergeants who may well be culpable as individuals for their actions, but who were certainly not responsible for the policies which set up the Bush Gulag and led to America's strategic catastrophe in Iraq.

I call on the administration to disclose all its interrogation policies, including those used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan and those employed by the CIA at its secret detention centers outside the U.S., as well as all the analyses related to the adoption of those policies.

The Bush administration's objective of establishing U.S. domination over any potential adversary led to the hubristic, tragic miscalculation of the Iraq war, a painful adventure marked by one disaster after another based on one mistaken assumption after another. But the people who paid the price have been the U.S. soldiers trapped over there and the Iraqis in prison. The top-heavy focus on dominance as a goal for the U.S. role in the world is exactly paralleled in their aspiration for the role of the president to be completely dominant in the constitutional system. Our founders understood even better than Lord Acton the inner meaning of his aphorism that power corrupts and absolutely power corrupts absolutely. The goal of dominance necessitates a focus on power. Ironically, all of their didactic messages about how democracies don't invade other nations fell on their own deaf ears. The pursuit of dominance in foreign and strategic policy led the bush administration to ignore the United nations, do serious damage to our most alliances in the world, violate international law and risk the hatred of the rest of the world. The seductive exercise of unilateral power has led this president to interpret his powers under the constitution in a way that would have been the worst nightmare of our framers.

And the kind of unilateral power he imagines is fools gold in any case. Just as its pursuit in Mesopotamia has led to tragic consequences for our soldiers, the Iraqi people, our alliances, everything we think is important, in the same way the pursuit of a new interpretation of the presidency that weakens the Congress, courts and civil society is not good for either the presidency or the rest of the nation.

If the congress becomes an enfeebled enabler to the executive, and the courts become known for political calculations in their decisions, then the country suffers. The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process.

Two hundred and twenty years ago, John Adams wrote, in describing one of America's most basic founding principles, "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them...to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

The last time we had a president who had the idea that he was above the law was when Richard Nixon told an interviewer, "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal... If the president, for example approves something, approves an action because of national security, or, in this case, because of a threat to internal peace and order, of significant order, then the president's decision in this instance is one that enables those who carry it out to carry it out without violating the law."

Fortunately for our country, Nixon was forced to resign as President before he could implement his outlandish interpretation of the Constitution, but not before his defiance of the Congress and the courts created a serious constitutional crisis.

The two top Justice Department officials under President Nixon, Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus, turned out to be men of great integrity, and even though they were loyal Republicans, they were more loyal to the constitution and resigned on principle rather than implement what they saw as abuses of power by Nixon. Then Congress, also on a bipartisan basis, bravely resisted Nixon's abuse of power and launched impeachment proceedings.

In some ways, our current President is actually claiming significantly more extra-constitutional power, vis-à-vis Congress and the courts, than Nixon did. For example, Nixon never claimed that he could imprison American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime and without letting the see a lawyer or notify their families. And this time, the attorney general, John Ashcroft, is hardly the kind of man who would resign on principle to impede an abuse of power. In fact, whenever there is an opportunity to abuse power in this administration, Ashcroft seems to be leading the charge. And it is Ashcroft who picked the staff lawyers at Justice responsible for the embarrassing memos justifying and enabling torture.

Moreover, in sharp contrast to the courageous 93rd Congress that saved the country from Richard Nixon's sinister abuses, the current Congress has virtually abdicated its constitutional role to serve as an independent and coequal branch of government.

Instead, this Republican-led Congress is content, for the most part, to take orders from the President on what they vote for and what they don't vote for. The Republican leaders of the House and Senate have even started blocking Democrats from attending conference committee meetings, where legislation takes its final form, and instead, they let the President's staff come to the meetings and write key parts of the laws for them. (Come to think of it, the decline and lack of independence shown by this Congress would shock our founders more than anything else, because they believed that the power of the Congress was the most important check and balance against the unhealthy exercise of too much power by the Executive branch.)

This administration has not been content just to reduce the Congress to subservience. It has also engaged in unprecedented secrecy, denying the American people access to crucial information with which they might hold government officials accountable for their actions, and a systematic effort to manipulate and intimidate the media into presenting a more favorable image of the Administration to the American people.

Listen to what U.S. News and World Report has to say about their secrecy: "The Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government - cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters."

Here are just a few examples, and for each one, you have to ask, what are they hiding, and why are they hiding it?

More than 6000 documents have been removed by the Bush Administration from governmental Web sites. To cite only one example, a document on the EPA Web site giving citizens crucial information on how to identify chemical hazards to their families. Some have speculated that the principle threat to the Bush administration is a threat by the chemical hazards if the information remains available to American citizens.

To head off complaints from our nation's Governors over how much they receive under federal programs, the Bush Administration simply stopped printing the primary state budget report.

To muddy the clear consensus of the scientific community on global warming, the White House directed major changes and deletions to an EPA report that were so egregious that the agency said it was too embarrassed to use the language.

They've kept hidden from view Cheney's ultra-secret energy task force. They have fought a pitched battle in the courts for more than three years to continue denying the American people the ability to know which special interests and lobbyists advised with Vice President Cheney on the design of the new laws.

And when mass layoffs became too embarrassing they simply stopped publishing the regular layoff report that economists and others have been receiving for decades. For this administration, the truth hurts, when the truth is available to the American people. They find bliss in the ignorance of the people. What are they hiding, and why are they hiding it?

In the end, for this administration, it is all about power. This lie about the invented connection between al Qaeda and Iraq was and is the key to justifying the current ongoing Constitutional power grab by the President. So long as their big flamboyant lie remains an established fact in the public's mind, President Bush will be seen as justified in taking for himself the power to make war on his whim. He will be seen as justified in acting to selectively suspend civil liberties - again on his personal discretion - and he will continue to intimidate the press and thereby distort the political reality experienced by the American people during his bid for re-election.

War is lawful violence, but even in its midst we acknowledge the need for rules. We know that in our wars there have been descents from these standards, often the result of spontaneous anger arising out of the passion of battle. But we have never before, to my knowledge, had a situation in which the framework for this kind of violence has been created by the President, nor have we had a situation where these things were mandated by directives signed by the Secretary of Defense, as it is alleged, and supported by the National Security Advisor.

Always before, we could look to the Chief Executive as the point from which redress would come and law be upheld. That was one of the great prides of our country: humane leadership, faithful to the law. What we have now, however, is the result of decisions taken by a President and an administration for whom the best law is NO law, so long as law threatens to constrain their political will. And where the constraints of law cannot be prevented or eliminated, then they maneuver it to be weakened by evasion, by delay, by hair-splitting, by obstruction, and by failure to enforce on the part of those sworn to uphold the law.

In these circumstances, we need investigation of the facts under oath, and in the face of penalties for evasion and perjury. We need investigation by an aroused congress whose bipartisan members know they stand before the judgment of history. We cannot depend up on a debased department of Justice given over to the hands of zealots. "Congressional oversight" and "special prosecution" are words that should hang in the air. If our honor as a nation is to be restored, it is not by allowing the mighty to shield themselves by bringing the law to bear against their pawns: it is by bringing the law to bear against the mighty themselves. Our dignity and honor as a nation never came from our perfection as a society or as a people: it came from the belief that in the end, this was a country which would pursue justice as the compass pursues the pole: that although we might deviate, we would return and find our path. This is what we must now do.

END

Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?

2004-06-24T19:31:00.000-04:00

June 20th, 2004 2:00 pm
The New York Times: Will Michael Moore's Facts Check Out?

By PHILIP SHENON / The New York Times

Michael Moore is not coy about his hopes for "Fahrenheit 9/11," his blistering documentary attack on President Bush and the war in Iraq. He wants it to be remembered as the first big-audience, election-year film that helped unseat a president.

"And it's not just a hope," the Oscar-winning filmmaker said in a phone interview last week, describing focus groups in Michigan in April at which, after seeing the movie, previously undecided voters expressed eagerness to defeat Mr. Bush. "We found that if you entered the theater on the fence, you fell off it somewhere during those two hours," he said. "It ignites a fire in people who had given up."

The movie's indictment of the president is nothing if not sprawling. Mr. Moore suggests that Mr. Bush and his administration jeopardized national security in an effort to placate Bush family cronies in Saudi Arabia, that the White House helped members of Mr. bin Laden's family to flee the United States after Sept. 11 and that the administration manipulated terrorism alert levels in order to scare Americans into supporting the invasion of Iraq.

Mr. Moore's previous films generated a cottage industry of conservative commentators eager to prove sloppiness and exaggeration in his films; a handful of mainstream critics have also found flaws. But if "Fahrenheit 9/11" attracts the audience Mr. Moore and his distributors are predicting, Mr. Moore may face an onslaught of fact-checking unlike anything he ? or any other documentary filmmaker ? has ever experienced. After all, White House officials and the Bush family began impugning the film even before any of them had seen it.

"Outrageously false," said Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, last month when told about the film's assertion of a sinister connection between Mr. Bush and the family of Osama bin Laden. The former president George H. W. Bush was quoted in The New York Daily News calling Mr. Moore a "slime ball" and describing the documentary as "a vicious personal attack on our son."

So how will Mr. Moore's movie stand up under close examination? Is the film's depiction of Mr. Bush as a lazy and duplicitous leader, blinded by his family's financial ties to Arab moneymen and the Saudi Arabian royal family, true to fact?

Mr. Moore and his distributors have refused to circulate copies of the film and its script before the film's release this Friday; his production team said that as of last Wednesday, there was no final script because the film was still undergoing minor editing ? for clarity, they said, not accuracy.

After a year spent covering the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, I was recently allowed to attend a Hollywood screening. Based on that single viewing, and after separating out what is clearly presented as Mr. Moore's opinion from what is stated as fact, it seems safe to say that central assertions of fact in "Fahrenheit 9/11" are supported by the public record (indeed, many of them will be familiar to those who have closely followed Mr. Bush's political career).

Mr. Moore is on firm ground in arguing that the Bushes, like many prominent Texas families with oil interests, have profited handsomely from their relationships with prominent Saudis, including members of the royal family and of the large and fabulously wealthy bin Laden clan, which has insisted it long ago disowned Osama. Mr. Moore spends several minutes in the film documenting ties between the president and James R. Bath, a financial advisor to a prominent member of the bin Laden family who was an original investor in Mr. Bush's Arbusto energy company and who served with the future president in the Air National Guard in the early 1970's. The Bath friendship, which indirectly links Mr. Bush to the family of the world's most notorious terrorist, has received less attention from national news organization than it has from reporters in Texas, but it has been well documented.

Mr. Moore charges that President Bush and his aides paid too little attention to warnings in the summer of 2001 that Al Qaeda was about to attack, including a detailed Aug. 6, 2001, C.I.A. briefing that warned of terrorism within the country's borders. In its final report next month, the Sept. 11 commission can be expected to offer support to this assertion. Mr. Moore says that instead of focusing on Al Qaeda, the president spent 42 percent of his first eight months in office on vacation; the figure came not from a conspiracy-hungry Web site but from a calculation by The Washington Post.

The most valid criticisms of the film are likely to involve the artful way that Mr. Moore connects the facts, and whether he has left out others that might undermine his scalding attack. A great many statistics fly by in the movie ? such as assertions that 6 percent to 7 percent of the United States is owned by Saudi Arabians, and that Saudi companies have paid more than $1.4 billion to Bush family interests. But Mr. Moore doesn't explain how he arrived at them, or what these vague interests comprise. Mr. Moore and his team say they have news reports and other evidence to back up the numbers and that it will be posted on his Web site (www.michaelmoore.com) after the film's release.

Mr. Moore may also be criticized for the way he portrays the evacuation of the extended bin Laden family from the United States after Sept. 11. As the Sept. 11 commission has found, the Saudi government was able to pull strings at senior levels of the Bush administration to help the bin Ladens leave the United States. But while the film clearly suggests that the flights occurred at a time when all air traffic was grounded immediately after the attacks ("Even Ricky Martin couldn't fly," Mr. Moore says over video of the singer wandering in an airport lobby), the Sept. 11 commission said in a report this April that there was "no credible evidence that any chartered flights of Saudi Arabian nationals departed the United States before the reopening of national airspace" and that the F.B.I. had concluded that no one aboard the flights was involved in Sept. 11.

In conversation, Mr. Moore defended the scene, saying his goal was to show how the White House was eager to bend and break the rules for Saudi friends ? in this case, the extended family of the terrorist who had just brought down the twin towers and attacked the Pentagon. And as reporters have found, the White House still refuses to document fully how the flights were arranged.

"I don't want to get lost in the forest because of a single tree," Mr. Moore said. "The main point I want people to go away with is that these people got special treatment because they were bin Ladens or Saudi royals, and you and I would never have been given that treatment."

Mr. Moore may also have to defend his portrayal of Mr. Bush's presidency as sinking prior to Sept. 11, citing an inability to win support for his legislation. But he fails to mention that in May, Congress agreed to Mr. Bush's $1.35 trillion tax cut, the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. Mr. Moore said that his review of news coverage before Sept. 11 shows that, with or without the tax cut, the Bush presidency was floundering before the terrorist attacks. Mr. Moore said, "I've read what other people wrote and said at the time, and he was definitely on the ropes."

Mr. Moore usually revels in his role as the target of conservative attacks, and his delight in playing the mischievous, little-guy bomb-thrower has brought him fame, wealth and the devotion of fans more interested in rhetorical force than precision. But with "Fahrenheit" he has taken on his biggest and best-defended target yet, and his production staff says that on his orders they have taken no chances in checking and double-checking the film, knowing Bush supporters would pounce on factual mistakes.

Mr. Moore is readying for a conservative counterattack, saying he has created a political-style "war room" to offer an instant response to any assault on the film's credibility. He has retained Chris Lehane, a Democratic Party strategist known as a master of the black art of "oppo," or opposition research, used to discredit detractors. He also hired outside fact-checkers, led by a former general counsel of The New Yorker and a veteran member of that magazine's legendary fact-checking team, to vet the film. And he is threatening to go one step further, saying he has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation.

"We want the word out," says Mr. Moore, who says he should have responded more quickly to allegations of inaccuracy in his Oscar-winning 2002 anti-gun documentary, "Bowling for Columbine." "Any attempts to libel me will be met by force," he said, not an ounce of humor in his familiar voice. "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court."

As proof of its scrupulousness, the Moore team cites adjustments it made to the film's portrayal of Attorney General John Ashcroft. The film is brutal to Mr. Ashcroft, depicting him as a glassy-eyed architect of efforts to shred the Constitution, who became Attorney General only after he proved himself so unpopular in his home state of Missouri that he lost a Senate race to a former Democratic governor who died in a plane crash a month before election day. "Voters preferred the dead guy," Mr. Moore deadpans in the film, a line that drew belly laughs at recent preview screenings. (In reality, voters knew they were in effect casting ballots for the governor's widow).

An earlier version of the film, however, included a reference to a widely circulated charge, broadcast by CBS News in July 2001, that Mr. Ashcroft had received warning of threats and stopped flying on commercial airlines. Tia Lessin, supervising producer of "Fahrenheit 9/11," said the reference to the CBS report was cut after Mr. Moore's fact-checking team found evidence that Mr. Ashcroft had flown commercially at least twice that summer.

"We have gone through every single word of this film ? literally every word ? and verified its accuracy," said Joanne Doroshow, a public interest lawyer and filmmaker who shared in a 1993 Oscar for documentaries and who joined the fact-checking effort last month. Ms. Doroshow is responsible for preparing what she calls a "fact-checking bible," with material ranging from newspaper and magazine articles to copies of the Federal Register, that will allow the film's lawyers and publicists to provide backup for its allegations.

That said, Mr. Moore's fact-checkers does not view the film as straight reportage. "This is an Op-Ed piece, it's not a news report," said Dev Chatillon, the former general counsel for The New Yorker. "This is not The New York Times, it's not a network news report. The facts have to be right, yes, but this is an individual's view of current events. And I'm a very firm believer that it is within everybody's right to examine the actions of their government."

Besides, it may turn out that the most talked-about moments in the film are the least impeachable. Mr. Moore makes extensive use of obscure footage from White House and network-news video archives, including long scenes that capture President Bush at his least articulate. For the White House, the most devastating segment of "Fahrenheit 9/11" may be the video of a befuddled-looking President Bush staying put for nearly seven minutes at a Florida elementary school on the morning of Sept. 11, continuing to read a copy of "My Pet Goat" to schoolchildren even after an aide has told him that a second plane has struck the twin towers. Mr. Bush's slow, hesitant reaction to the disastrous news has never been a secret. But seeing the actual footage, with the minutes ticking by, may prove more damaging to the White House than all the statistics in the world.

Cheney curses Senator over Halliburton criticism

2004-06-24T18:51:00.000-04:00

What a bunch of lowlifes are in control of our nation....

Cheney curses senator over Halliburton criticism
From Steve Turnham
CNN Washington Bureau
Thursday, June 24, 2004 Posted: 6:14 PM EDT (2214 GMT)

Vice President Dick Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton before he became George Bush's running mate.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Typically a break from partisan warfare, this year's Senate class photo turned smiles into snarls as Vice President Dick Cheney reportedly used a profanity toward one senior Democrat, sources said.

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, who was on the receiving end of Cheney's ire, confirmed that the Vice President used profanity during Tuesday's class photo.

A spokesman for Cheney confirmed there was a "frank exchange of views."

Using profanity on the Senate floor while the Senate is session is against the rules. But the Senate was technically not in session at the time and the normal rules did not apply, a Senate official said.

The story, which was recounted by several sources, goes like this:

Cheney, who as president of the Senate was present for the picture day, turned to Leahy and scolded the senator over his recent criticism of the vice president for Halliburton's alleged war profiteering.

Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton, and Democrats have suggested that while serving in the Bush administration he helped win lucrative contracts for his former firm, including a no-bid contract to rebuild Iraq.

Cheney's office has said repeatedly that the vice president has no role in government contracting and has severed all financial ties with the Texas-based oil services conglomerate.

Cheney was chief executive officer of Halliburton from 1995 to 2000. He resigned when he became George Bush's running mate.

Responding to Cheney's comment, Leahy reminded him of an earlier statement the vice president had made about him. Cheney then replied with profanity.

Leahy would not comment on the specifics of the story Thursday, but did confirm that Cheney used profanity.

"I think he was just having a bad day," said Leahy, "and I was kind of shocked to hear that kind of language on the floor."

Kevin Kellems, a spokesman for the vice president, said, "That doesn't sound like the kind of language that the vice president would use, but I can confirm that there was a frank exchange of views."

Democratic Convention Credentials Bloggers

2004-06-21T23:23:00.000-04:00

Democrat Convention Credentials Bloggers

Mon Jun 21, 8:56 AM ET Add Technology - AP to My Yahoo!

By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet Writer

NEW YORK - A handful of scribes publishing in a newer medium will join the thousands of newspaper, magazine and broadcast journalists at this summer's political conventions. They'll be blogging.

The Democrats are holding true to their "party of inclusion" billing vis-a-vis the online chroniclers, whose Web logs have leapt in popularity this year as political junkies increasingly get their fix with mouse clicks. Democrats say they'll offer media credentials to a handful of bloggers. The Republicans say they've yet to decide what to do about them — credentialing deadlines passed with no announcement on whether bloggers could even apply.

GOP spokesman Leonardo Alcivar said details are still being worked out, but some analysts believe the party is wary of bloggers, who tend to be less predictable than mainstream journalists.

Michele Catalano of The Command Post, a mostly news-as-it-happens blog, said she'll cover the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 convention at Madison Square Garden in Manhattan from outside if necessary.

"To compete with the regular media, it's important to be where the media is," the 31-year-old East Meadow, N.Y., blogger said.

Scott Schmidt, 28, a GOP activist who blogs from Los Angeles, said Republicans were "late to the game" but now appear serious about granting some access.

He has traded e-mails informally with convention officials about getting inside. But Schmidt is not waiting. As a backup, he sought credentials as a guest of the California delegation.

More than 50 bloggers met last Tuesday's deadline to apply for the Democratic National Convention credentials, of which an undetermined number will be selected based on originality, readership level and professionalism, said convention spokeswoman Lina Garcia.

She said the Democrats consider blogs important for engaging younger voters and expanding journalism to the citizenry. But that won't make the credentialing easy.

Colette D. Marine, a 35-year-old Chicago blogger trying to get credentialed for the July 26-29 gathering in Boston, fortified her application with a brief essay and samples of previous postings after the Democrats asked for more material.

"I get a sense they are making it up as they go along," Marine said. "It's a new phenomenon. I'm sure they are just as confused as everybody is."

For traditional media, both big parties generally rely on rules established by committees of journalists for getting passes to cover Congress. But no such procedure exists for blogs.

Bloggers with Democratic credentials will get the same access as any other media to most of the FleetCenter in Boston. If they need assigned spaces, they'll be asked to pay for phone, furniture rental and other expenses just like mainstream journalists.

But bloggers will share proportionally fewer passes to get on the convention floor where speeches are delivered.

As for the Republicans, Sree Sreenivasan, a new media professor at Columbia University, said the party ought to embrace at least a few sympathetic bloggers.

"Most bloggers who believe strongly in one party or another aren't going to stray from the message," Sreenivasan said. "They will give access to stories that may not be covered otherwise."

Some of the bloggers seeking credentials say their coverage plans involve little more than going where the mood takes them. Their personal accounts are unfettered by editors — and most don't pretend to be objective.

"We don't have those constraints, which provides for more colorful coverage," said Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, whose Daily Kos is among the most visited political blogs. "If I want to use profanity in a post, I'll use profanity."

Moulitsas, a 32-year-old from Berkeley, Calif., who has applied for Democratic credentials, said he would "probe and pry and look in corners that the political press isn't looking."

Many bloggers will wade through the largely scripted events, looking for fresh ways to expose the "pandering and stupidity and ... unpredictable madness" on the sidelines, said Australian blogger Tim Blair, 39.

Blair is trying to attend both conventions through a freelancing magazine gig.

Phil Noble, a political consultant who runs PoliticsOnline, said bloggers, lacking the expenses of traditional media, can focus on "the small stories, the small voices, the things that are only interesting to a smaller audience."

Some bloggers, however, are skeptical of the value of the cash outlays involved in attending the conventions — even though some earn hundreds of dollars a month from advertisements on their Web sites.

They believe they can do as good a job or better monitoring the events on television or through other Web sites.

"It's like the Super Bowl," said Bob Somerby, 56, a Baltimore blogger. "You can see it better at home."

How much influence bloggers might have remains to be seen.

"This is a real landmark for the legitimacy of the blogger and a testament to their growing influence, said Jonathan Dube, who blogs about online journalism. "That doesn't necessarily make them mainstream, simply because not enough people are reading them right now."
___

Anick Jesdanun can be reached at netwriter(at)ap.org

The Issue is Trust and Competence

2004-06-20T02:11:00.000-04:00

9/11 Panel's Findings Vault Bush Credibility To Campaign Forefront

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page A01

The White House's swift and sustained reaction last week to the preliminary findings of the Sept. 11, 2001, commission showed the potential threat the 10-member panel poses to President Bush's reelection prospects.

After the commission staff released its findings Wednesday that there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda -- challenging an assertion Bush and Vice President Cheney have made for the past two years -- Bush declared again that there was, in fact, a relationship.

Democratic and Republican strategists agree that many details of the controversy do not pose a grave threat to Bush's reelection chances.

The significance, rather, is whether Bush's Democratic challenger, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), can use the commission's findings to split the Iraq war from the war on terrorism in the public's mind, and, more broadly, raise doubts about Bush's credibility and competence by building on the failure to find weapons of mass destruction and the miscalculations about the Iraqi resistance.

Bush has long sought to link the Iraq invasion to his popular war on terrorism after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. With the commission's final report due on July 26 -- as the Democratic convention begins -- Kerry is already trying to use the panel's findings to his advantage to decouple the Iraq war from the post-9/11 U.S. retaliation in Afghanistan.

"The 9/11 report is just one more issue that casts doubt on the truthfulness of this White House," said Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's campaign spokeswoman. "This White House is operating under a cloud of secrecy, and the American people have lost the ability to trust them."

Late last week, commission leaders invited Cheney to provide intelligence reports that would buttress the White House's insistence that there were close ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, a commission member said. Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton told the New York Times they wanted to see any additional information in the administration's possession after Cheney said Thursday in a television interview that he "probably" knew things about Iraq's ties to terrorists that the commission did not.

The panel also wants to follow up its questioning of national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and outgoing CIA Director George J. Tenet. The Los Angeles Times reported yesterday that Tenet, who leaves office in July, had agreed to be re-interviewed, and the commission might submit written questions to Rice.

Many Republicans are furious about the commission -- though its members are evenly split between the two parties and it is chaired by a Republican appointed by Bush. They say that Bush was right to oppose the commission in the first place, and that House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) was right this year when he unsuccessfully fought an extension of the commission's deadline.

The panel has become "a tool for partisan politics," Rep. Eric I. Cantor (Va.), a member of the House Republican leadership, charged in an interview last week. "With the latest commission finding coming out that there were allegedly no ties between Hussein and al Qaeda, I think they are totally off their mission, and I think that's indicative of the political partisanship."

Bush so far has survived challenges to his war rationale, and most Americans believe the war in Iraq was worth fighting. Still, the debate over the war, and the credibility of Bush's justifications, has kept the president's reelection campaign on the defensive and limited coverage of favorable news domestically such as a steady improvement in the economy and jobs growth. "We're challenged by the fact that there's been so much in terms of world events that we haven't gotten much out" on the economy, a senior Bush campaign aide said. "How do we fight this wave of events in a very crowded news climate?"

Indeed, the past four announcements of expanding payrolls have been overshadowed. The commission and its related disputes, said Republican pollster David Winston, are "complicating things, because this administration wants to get out information about how the economy is doing."

Bush aides have sought to blunt the Democratic offensive not by challenging the commission's findings but by arguing that Kerry and the media have mischaracterized the findings. The White House issued a 1,000-word document titled "TALKING POINTS: 9-11 Commission Staff Report Confirms Administration's Views of al-Qaeda/Iraq Ties."

"The 9/11 commission came to the same conclusion as the administration regarding ties between Iraq and al Qaeda," campaign communications director Nicolle Devenish said. She said this is Kerry's "desperate attempt to put a negative spin on what was broad consensus between the administration and the commission."

Similarly, Cheney, on CNBC, said the media had been irresponsible in reporting the commission's findings. "What they [the commission] were addressing was whether or not they [Iraq] were involved in 9/11," he said. "They did not address the broader question of a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda in other areas, in other ways."

In fact, commission spokesman Al Felzenberg on Friday confirmed that the commission was addressing the broader relationship. "We found no evidence of joint operations or joint work or common operations between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government, and that's beyond 9/11," he said.

One reason for this sensitivity can be found in a poll last week by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center. The poll found improved support for Bush and for the Iraq war -- in large part because Americans have been paying less attention to the war and more to other issues, such as the death of Ronald Reagan. The commission, however, has helped to return national attention to the disputed justifications for the Iraq war.

In particular, the poll showed that Americans are beginning to decouple the war in Iraq from the war on terrorism -- a belief that could be aided by the commission's dismissal of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. Still, Andrew Kohut, who directs the poll, predicts Bush will be able to keep al Qaeda and Iraq tied in the public's mind; about half believe such a connection has been proved, various polls indicate. "So many people believe it because he's saying it," Kohut said. "Bush's hanging tough on this gives him the credibility he has."

Democrats, however, hope to gain critical mass in their effort to convince the public that Bush is untrustworthy by extending the charge that Bush has misled the country not just about al Qaeda but about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the torture of prisoners in Iraq, and even the U.S. economy. In one sign of the assault, 27 former diplomats and military commanders -- some Republicans -- issued a statement last week condemning Bush's foreign policy as "overbearing," "insensitive" and "disdainful," and urging Bush's defeat.

Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager and now coordinator of an anti-Bush advertising effort, said the commission painted "a pretty startling portrait of administration fecklessness" -- and one that Democrats think they can turn into a major campaign theme.

"The issue," Jordan said, "is trust and [Bush's] competence."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

Imperial Hubris

2004-06-19T01:34:00.000-04:00

Bush told he is playing into Bin Laden's hands

Al-Qaida may 'reward' American president with strike aimed at keeping him in office, senior intelligence man says

Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday June 19, 2004
The Guardian

A senior US intelligence official is about to publish a bitter condemnation of America's counter-terrorism policy, arguing that the west is losing the war against al-Qaida and that an "avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked" war in Iraq has played into Osama bin Laden's hands.
Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror, due out next month, dismisses two of the most frequent boasts of the Bush administration: that Bin Laden and al-Qaida are "on the run" and that the Iraq invasion has made America safer.

In an interview with the Guardian the official, who writes as "Anonymous", described al-Qaida as a much more proficient and focused organisation than it was in 2001, and predicted that it would "inevitably" acquire weapons of mass destruction and try to use them.

He said Bin Laden was probably "comfortable" commanding his organisation from the mountainous tribal lands along the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The Pakistani army claimed a big success in the "war against terror" yesterday with the killing of a tribal leader, Nek Mohammed, who was one of al-Qaida's protectors in Waziristan.

But Anonymous, who has been centrally involved in the hunt for Bin Laden, said: "Nek Mohammed is one guy in one small area. We sometimes forget how big the tribal areas are." He believes President Pervez Musharraf cannot advance much further into the tribal areas without endangering his rule by provoking a Pashtun revolt. "He walks a very fine line," he said yesterday.

Imperial Hubris is the latest in a relentless stream of books attacking the administration in election year. Most of the earlier ones, however, were written by embittered former officials. This one is unprecedented in being the work of a serving official with nearly 20 years experience in counter-terrorism who is still part of the intelligence establishment.

The fact that he has been allowed to publish, albeit anonymously and without naming which agency he works for, may reflect the increasing frustration of senior intelligence officials at the course the administration has taken.

Peter Bergen, the author of two books on Bin Laden and al-Qaida, said: "His views represent an amped-up version of what is emerging as a consensus among intelligence counter-terrorist professionals."

Anonymous does not try to veil his contempt for the Bush White House and its policies. His book describes the Iraq invasion as "an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantage.

"Our choice of timing, moreover, shows an abject, even wilful failure to recognise the ideological power, lethality and growth potential of the threat personified by Bin Laden, as well as the impetus that threat has been given by the US-led invasion and occupation of Muslim Iraq."

In his view, the US missed its biggest chance to capture the al-Qaida leader at Tora Bora in the Afghan mountains in December 2001. Instead of sending large numbers of his own troops, General Tommy Franks relied on surrogates who proved to be unreliable.

"For my money, the game was over at Tora Bora," Anonymous said.

Yesterday President Bush repeated his assertion that Bin Laden was cornered and that there was "no hole or cave deep enough to hide from American justice".

Anonymous said: "I think we overestimate significantly the stress [Bin Laden's] under. Our media and sometimes our policymakers suggest he's hiding from rock to rock and hill to hill and cave to cave. My own hunch is that he's fairly comfortable where he is."

The death and arrest of experienced operatives might have set back Bin Laden's plans to some degree but when it came to his long-term capacity to threaten the US, he said, "I don't think we've laid a glove on him".

"What I think we're seeing in al-Qaida is a change of generation," he said."The people who are leading al-Qaida now seem a lot more professional group.

"They are more bureaucratic, more management competent, certainly more literate. Certainly, this generation is more computer literate, more comfortable with the tools of modernity. I also think they're much less prone to being the Errol Flynns of al-Qaida. They're just much more careful across the board in the way they operate."

As for weapons of mass destruction, he thinks that if al-Qaida does not have them already, it will inevitably acquire them.

The most likely source of a nuclear device would be the former Soviet Union, he believes. Dirty bombs, chemical and biological weapons, could be home-made by al-Qaida's own experts, many of them trained in the US and Britain.

Anonymous, who published an analysis of al-Qaida last year called Through Our Enemies' Eyes, thinks it quite possible that another devastating strike against the US could come during the election campaign, not with the intention of changing the administration, as was the case in the Madrid bombing, but of keeping the same one in place.

"I'm very sure they can't have a better administration for them than the one they have now," he said.

"One way to keep the Republicans in power is to mount an attack that would rally the country around the president."

The White House has yet to comment publicly on Imperial Hubris, which is due to be published on July 4, but intelligence experts say it may try to portray him as a professionally embittered maverick.

The tone of Imperial Hubris is certainly angry and urgent, and the stridency of his warnings about al-Qaida led him to be moved from a highly sensitive job in the late 90s.

But Vincent Cannistraro, a former chief of operations at the CIA counter-terrorism centre, said he had been vindicated by events. "He is very well respected, and looked on as a serious student of the subject."

Anonymous believes Mr Bush is taking the US in exactly the direction Bin Laden wants, towards all-out confrontation with Islam under the banner of spreading democracy.

He said: "It's going to take 10,000-15,000 dead Americans before we say to ourselves: 'What is going on'?"

Phil Steele's College Football Preview 2004

2004-06-19T00:07:00.000-04:00

Phil Steele writes by far the best college football preview magazine available on the market today. Over the last 5 years, comparisons have shown his predictions of top 25 finishes leads all other major magazines. Phil writes his entire magazine himself and doesn't farm out regional coverage to local writers. He and his researchers don't do anything but research and cover college football 365 days a year. He doesn't do Pro Football, baseball or any other sport.

In fact, he has correctly picked the finishing position of the SEC east perfectly the last five years. And he has only made a couple of third and fourth place mistakes in the SEC west over the same time period. He ranks the Position Strengths (PS) of all players in college football and starts with recruiting rankings of Very Highly Touted (VHT) players. Once you understand his shorthand, you can read his conclusions.

If you like to wager on college football, go buy this magazine today. It's the best $7.95 you can spend. If you don't wager, it's still the best preview magazine on the market. And another tip for the betters. Phil has a weekly tip sheet you can subscribe to during the season. And his 5 star picks are golden.

Phil's Volunteer Forecast

It's interesting to see how Tennessee fans view their program since Phil Fulmer won them a National Title in 1998. You would think the Vols have had two straight horrendous seasons the last two years based on the amount of pressure Fulmer is under. It's true, in their last two bowls the have been noncompetitive getting blown out by both Maryland and Clemson. Tennessee has not been as dominant as their National Title team but have now been to 15 straight bowl games, a school record and the longest streak in the SEC. They did have a streak of 7 straight New Years Day bowls snapped in 2002. Over the last nine years the Vols are 59-16 in conference play (best in the SEC). Last season they tied for first in the SEC East and finished the regular season #6 and still didn't make it to a BCS game. They ended Miami's 26 game home win streak, but somehow fell all the way to the SEC's #5 bowl. Last year they had to replace 8 NFL draft choices, which tied Miami for the most and had just 11 starters back. This year they have just 9 starters back. On defense they lose 4 of their top 6 tacklers, while on offense, QB Casy Clausen must be replaced. The difference between Tennessee appearing in the SEC title game and finishing in the #5 bowl slot was probably one play against Georgia. This Vol team, despite only having 9 starters back, could be one of the surprise teams in the country as most of their SEC road games are winnable and they have 7 home games. The key could be Oct 9th on the road vs and extremely loaded Georgia team. Despite this clearly being a rebuilding year for the Vols, I feel they've underachieved the last two seasons and they have 14 players on my SEC all conference team, which is the most in the league. There is a possibility they could be favored in ten of their 11 games this year and should have a better season than most people will forecast.

Reagan-Palooza

2004-06-18T19:35:00.000-04:00

Reagan-Palooza
Frequently asked questions about Ronald Reagan's funeral

Q. Isn't there some sort of time limit on these things?
A. You're right, it seemed like about a year. But Reagan-Palooza has wound down, and they finally put the old man in the ground. Reluctantly. I mean, c'mon, JFK only got 4 days.

Q. Is it really over over, or is this just an intermission?
A. Well, if Karl Rove had his way, they'd still be dragging the body back and forth across the country in the bed of a Ford F-150 pickup, stopping at county fairs, right up till the election. He probably approached the widow with a contingency plan to dig up the carcass of conservatism in case Bush's prospects head South later this summer.

Q. Why did the networks go so crazy with non-stop footage?
A. This is going to sound silly, but they went crazy because they could. Eight years as President piled on top of eight years as governor added to 20 years in film and TV: they had footage up the wazoo.

Q. Still, don't you think it was kind of overdone?
A. You think so? I switched on the national news on Thursday and they cut from another unctuous paean to Reagan to a story on the Laci Peterson trial and I actually heard myself mutter out loud, "Thank God."

Q. Does Reagan get frequent flyer miles for all those cross-country coffin trips?
A. Probably not, but then the chances of him cashing them in are pretty slim anyway.

Q. Is this going to help Bush?
A. What a repugnant suggestion. To sully the death and mourning of a national legend by raising the ugly specter of partisan politics.

Q. Does that mean yes?
A. A 168-hour commercial on the ideals of conservatism? Yeah, you could say this is going to help Bush. You could also say wolverines make lousy crib toys.

Q. What long-term repercussions are expected?
A. Well, if this unfortunate demise and subsequent memorial buoys Bush, and Kerry falls behind in the polls, you know his people are going to have to consider taking out Clinton in October. If they don't need that big of a bounce, Carter.

Q. Any advice for the former Presidents?
A. I've heard Gstaad is nice in the fall.

Q. Do you really think they'll put Ronnie's face on the 10 dollar bill?
A. I'm thinking the ten thousand dollar bill would be much more appropriate.

Q. Wasn't it a mite cruel to honor a man who suffered through the throes of Alzheimer's for more than ten years with logos entitled "Remembering Ronald Reagan"?
A. I refuse to dignify that question with an answer.

Q. Okay, moving on. What was that whole "they've been planning this deal for over 10 years" crap?
A. Settle down, after you've fossilized into a beloved institution for a couple decades, you get the same free pass to arrange your burial for maximum press coverage.

Q. Does Nancy Reagan get to take a nap now?
A. Hopefully. As the week wore on, the poor lady looked more and more like a Pez Dispenser every day.

Q. What do you think of Kerry's decision to suspend his campaign during Reagan Death Week?
A. It might help in that the people who are aware he suspended his campaign are also now aware that he at one time had one -- and might again someday.

Will Durst is planning his burial already. It involves a drinking game and empty bottles. To read more Will Durst satire, see the Will Durst archive.

(c) 2004 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

The Plain Truth

2004-06-17T20:02:00.000-04:00

The Plain Truth
Published: June 17, 2004 New York Times

It's hard to imagine how the commission investigating the 2001 terrorist attacks could have put it more clearly yesterday: there was never any evidence of a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda, between Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11.

Now President Bush should apologize to the American people, who were led to believe something different.

Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

On Monday, Mr. Cheney said Mr. Hussein "had long-established ties with Al Qaeda." Mr. Bush later backed up Mr. Cheney, claiming that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a terrorist who may be operating in Baghdad, is "the best evidence" of a Qaeda link. This was particularly astonishing because the director of central intelligence, George Tenet, told the Senate earlier this year that Mr. Zarqawi did not work with the Hussein regime.

The staff report issued by the 9/11 panel says that Sudan's government, which sheltered Osama bin Laden in the early 1990's, tried to hook him up with Mr. Hussein, but that nothing came of it.

This is not just a matter of the president's diminishing credibility, although that's disturbing enough. The war on terror has actually suffered as the conflict in Iraq has diverted military and intelligence resources from places like Afghanistan, where there could really be Qaeda forces, including Mr. bin Laden.

Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest

2004-06-17T00:42:00.000-04:00

Clinton-haters vs. Bush-bashers? No contest

June 16, 2004 BY RICHARD ROEPER SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST

After I gave thumbs-up to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" on "Ebert & Roeper," some conservatives demanded I come clean. "Admit it, you hate Bush!" said one e-mailer after another.

After I wrote a couple of columns about Ronald Reagan in which I failed to advocate placing Reagan's visage on Mount Rushmore, the dime or the $20 dollar bill, I heard from conservatives who maintained this was just another example of my anti-Republican bias.

After I marveled at Ann Coulter's bottomless reserve of hatred for liberals, I once again heard from outraged conservatives.

"Coulter doesn't hate liberals any more than you hate President Bush!" said one caller.

Do I hate the president? Not the kind of "Hate Lite" discussed in yesterday's column about the minor everyday inconveniences -- but a pure, evil hatred, like the loathing we harbor for the likes of Hitler and serial killers.

Answer: not even close.

Heck, there have even been times when I've admired the man, e.g., when he stood amid the rubble of Ground Zero, megaphone in hand, and rallied the firefighters, police and rescue workers.

More often, I've been angry at Bush's arrogance and incompetence, and I've despised his policies -- but I don't hate the man.

I have to admit, though, that it's hilarious to see so many conservatives displaying such sensitivity over this issue. Again and again, I hear from Republicans who are shocked, saddened and sickened by the level of vitriol against their beloved President Bush. Why, they've never seen anything like it. How can people be so irrationally emotional, so personal, so vicious in their hatred of a sitting president?

Right. Because the anti-Clinton movement never turned hateful.

How soon they forget Talk about your institutional amnesia. It is absolutely astonishing that some of the same people who spent more than eight years beating up on Bill (and Hillary, and Chelsea, and Buddy the dog), are now so offended by attacks against their guy that sometimes land below the belt.

Folks, do you not see the hypocrisy at work here?

This makes about as much sense as a bully taking a kid's lunch money for eight years -- only to complain when the kid finally lands a counterpunch during freshman year in high school. "Ow! You're mean!"

Understand, I'm not denying the existence of more than a few liberals who truly hate President Bush. Whether it's an idiot singer saying Bush should have died instead of Reagan; photoshopped images of Bush and Cheney as Nazis; Web sites filled with personal insults; or conspiracy theorists accusing the Bush family of participating in a ludicrously diverse litany of crimes up to and including the assassination of JFK, there's some nasty, unfair, off-the-wall stuff out there. Even if you abhor everything about the Bush presidency, this is not the way for decent human beings to campaign against his re-election.

But in volume and variety of rumor-mongering, the Bush-haters aren't even in the same league with the Clinton-haters. I'd say that for every anti-Bushite who's ticked because we didn't find weapons of mass destruction, there were a dozen anti-Clintonites who spent a good chunk of the 1990s screaming, "IT'S NOT ABOUT SEX, IT'S ABOUT LYING UNDER OATH!"

And for every Bush-basher who whispers about the president's "unstable" behavior in the White House, there were a dozen Clinton-haters going around saying it was a "known fact" that the president was a rapist.

And a cokehead. And a murderer.

Don't hate the prez, hate the policies

The Clinton-haters were consumed by an obsessive hatred that had them believing (and advancing) every insane rumor imaginable. If we were to believe every unfounded story swirling about, Hillary Clinton was a communist lesbian married to a drug-running serial rapist, and when Bill and Hill weren't working to bump off anyone who might expose their criminal doings, they were conspiring to destroy organized religion and/or each other.

And that's why Vince Foster was murdered. Or something.

Indeed, some of the Bush-bashing is out of hand -- but anyone who claims it's worse than the anti-Clinton garbage is either in denial or is 8 years old.

Because if you're old enough and honest enough to remember the 1990s, you have to admit the Clinton-haters far outnumbered and out-hated the Bush-haters.

To borrow an old Republican catchphrase: In your heart, you know I'm right.

DISCUSS AMONG YOURSELVES HERE

The Ashheap of History

2004-06-16T18:28:00.000-04:00

Last week's prolonged tribute to Former President Ronald Reagan brought back memories of the 1980's to many who endured that era and also new awareness to those too young to have experienced "trinkle down economics". Our GOP leaders in Congress spent 420 million dollars of taxpayer funds to provide this grand send off for "The Gipper". Let's see what we got for our money.

Many things have "trinkled down" to us from that time in America. A world wide AIDS epidemic that could have been stemmed with timely action by the Reaganites, but was allowed to expand exponentially by their inaction. Trillions of dollars of new public debt that our grandchildren will still be paying. Rusting and wasted armaments. Huge expenditures on the military/industrial complex. Billions spent on new weapons systems that were never practical applications at any stretch of the imagination. Actual "imaginary" weapons like "star wars" that are incorrectly credited with ending the cold war. Death squads funded with illegal monies. False testimony to Congress. Indictments and censures.

The last few weeks have exposed us to a massive public relations campaign designed with two purposes in mind. First to deify Reagan. Secondly to link George W. Bush to that deification. I personally would be a proponent of the latter of these goals, but laugh at the former.

Ronald Reagan was no deity. He was a very flawed leader who confused steadfastness with correctness. And there the similarity occurs our present President. George W. Bush is also stubbornly wrong and persistent in that course.

As the public turned against the excesses of Reaganism, so also will Americans turn their faces from Bushism. And both will end up in the "Ashheap of History".

volzz, June 16, 2004 DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE HERE

Kerry tops Bush again

2004-06-16T14:53:00.000-04:00

Wed Jun 16th, 2004 at 11:30:35 EDT

The Kerry campaign has just announced that it has raised $100 million in the last three months, including $26 million in May. From the press release:

Shattering all grassroots fundraising records, 75 percent of the funds Kerry has raised since Super Tuesday have been from grassroots fundraising - online $44 million, direct mail and phones $31 million. The average grassroots contribution at johnkerry.com was $108, the average via direct mail and phones was about $70.
For the third straight month, Kerry out raised Bush. May's Kerry Campaign total was more than double the Bush-Cheney campaign's May total of $13 million. Kerry beat Bush's total by $15 million in April ($31 million to $16 million) and by over $17 million in March, when the Kerry campaign raised $43.4 million. The Kerry Campaign has receipts for well over $140 million for the presidential primary cycle, breaking Bush's 2000 record for a non-incumbent, according to the FEC report Kerry will file on June 20th.

To emphasize, Bush's May take was $13 million, Kerry's was $26 million.
Now we need to see the cash onhand numbers. It'll be interesting to see how much more money Bush has misspent in his futile and expensive ($100 million and climbing) attempt to raise Kerry's negatives.