From the, "Why do we have to turn to the foreign press to get our news?," comes this:

Fight to the Death

December 20, 2003

Paul McGeough reports from Baghdad on the Iraqis who hated Saddam, but who hate the Americans more.

In Khaldiyah, it's a war of nerves. A three-metre-deep crater marks the explosion point of a careering car bomb that the local police knew was inevitable. Just across and down a highway that cuts through this small town west of Baghdad is the home of a man the US suspects could help bring an end to these relentless attacks - tribal sheik Fanar Al-Kharbit.

The bomb exploded only hours before the first news flash on the most dramatic turn in the Iraq conflict since the fall of Baghdad - the capture last Saturday evening of Saddam Hussein.

Throughout the night each side operated in secrecy, the Americans subjecting Saddam to a humiliating videotaped medical examination that would be released to the world, the insurgents rigging the car with enough explosive to kill 23 Iraqis in a strike on the Khaldiyah police station that also would flash worldwide - until it was blitzed from the media by the news of Saddam's arrest.

As black smoke cleared over Khaldiyah and its dusty main street was swept of body parts, shattered glass and clothing now reduced to singed rags, locals went through the grim ritual of tallying the dead - more than a dozen policemen, at least one student from a nearby school, a fruit vendor, a few other street-stallholders and a man who worked in a nearby sewage control office.

The police station, shielded only by a lightweight cinderblock wall, was targeted because the insurgents accuse the Iraqi police of collaborating with the US occupation forces. Initially, at least, it had the desired effect - police anger was directed not at the bomber, but at the Americans.

Surviving policemen complained that the US had not sufficiently protected their station, that they had been threatened with the sack for their reluctance to join US raiding parties and that locals constantly abused them as American lackeys. Acutely aware that he is 120 times more likely to die than his counterpart on the beat in New York, police officer Khalid Hammed said: "The best thing the US can do for us is pull out."

The two-storey building is a police station in name only, pushed into action ahead of its time because of a US determination to be seen to be putting Iraqi security forces in place. More than 100 men are stationed at Khaldiyah, but only half have uniforms and fewer have weapons; they share two patrol cars with four other stations in the area and they have one telephone.

Like other guerilla conflicts, Iraq has become a war of attrition.

Super self-protection by the Americans makes them a difficult target. So the insurgents turn more on Iraqis who are seen to be helping the US - police and security workers, the judiciary and local political leaders...much more at link.

To my politically naive mind, this seems a simple issue. Let's turn the tables. An American leader, feared and hated by much of the citizenry(anyone come to mind?), is deposed and in his/her place an occupying force is installed. Would you welcome them with open arms and flowers? I thought not.

On an interesting aside, I noticed that Time magazine has anointed the "U.S. soldier" as their 'person' of the year. This strikes me as rather odd. If I was an Iraqi, I'd be struck much harder, but in a different way.

The Iraq war is certainly the biggest news story of the year....91 billion dollars and counting. And yes, I can certainly see honoring those on the ground. The vast majority have served their country honorably. I do have a great deal of contempt for guys like Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz, and Bush the Bungler, the clowns that sent these kids on the Neo-cons' Excellent Adventure.

My initial feeling is that the award should have gone to someone or group that got the Iraqi equation right. But then, these people like The Dixie Chicks or Janeane Garofalo were vilified, and I suspect are still regarded as traitors by some of the less than enlightened populace. So, Time makes the easy decision..After all CNN is a Time-Warner® Company.

Normally, I wouldn't link to Michael Moore's site, but the times in which we find ourselves are anything but 'normal.' I found this at The Smirking Chimp, and found it raw and moving. Without further ado..

Friday, December 19th, 2003

Letters the Troops Have Sent Me... by Michael Moore


Dear Friends,

As we approach the holidays, I've been thinking a lot about our kids who are in the armed forces serving in Iraq. I've received hundreds of letters from our troops in Iraq -- and they are telling me something very different from what we are seeing on the evening news.

What they are saying to me, often eloquently and in heart-wrenching words, is that they were lied to -- and this war has nothing to do with the security of the United States of America.

I've written back and spoken on the phone to many of them and I've asked a few of them if it would be OK if I posted their letters on my website and they've said yes. They do so at great personal risk (as they may face disciplinary measures for exercising their right to free speech). I thank them for their bravery.

Lance Corporal George Batton of the United States Marine Corps, who returned from Iraq in September (after serving in MP company Alpha), writes the following:

“You'd be surprised at how many of the guys I talked to in my company and others believed that the president's scare about Saddam's WMD was a bunch of bullshit and that the real motivation for this war was only about money. There was also a lot of crap that many companies, not just marine companies, had to go through with not getting enough equipment to fulfill their missions when they crossed the border. It was a miracle that our company did what it did the two months it was staying in Iraq during the war…. We were promised to go home on June 8th, and found out that it was a lie and we got stuck doing missions for an extra three months. Even some of the most radical conservatives in our company including our company gunnery sergeant got a real bad taste in their mouth about the Marine corps, and maybe even president Bush.”

Here's what Specialist Mike Prysner of the U.S. Army wrote to me:

“Dear Mike -- I’m writing this without knowing if it’ll ever get to you…I’m writing it from the trenches of a war (that’s still going on,) not knowing why I’m here or when I’m leaving. I’ve toppled statues and vandalized portraits, while wearing an American flag on my sleeve, and struggling to learn how to understand… I joined the army as soon as I was eligible – turned down a writing scholarship to a state university, eager to serve my country, ready to die for the ideals I fell in love with. Two years later I found myself moments away from a landing onto a pitch black airstrip, ready to charge into a country I didn't believe I belonged in, with your words (from the Oscars) repeating in my head. My time in Iraq has always involved finding things to convince myself that I can be proud of my actions; that I was a part of something just. But no matter what pro-war argument I came up with, I pictured my smirking commander-in-chief, thinking he was fooling a nation…" Lots more at link.

Pretty predictable coming from Moore, but soldiers usually cut through the bullshit.

There aren't many 'must visit' websites on a daily basis, but for political news and analysis(analyses?) I would have to give nods to Cursor, Democracy Now!, BuzzFlash, CounterPunch, and Salon(especially noteworthy at Salon: Michelle Goldberg and Joe Conason's Journal).

From CounterPunch comes this:

Lessons from the Israeli School

How to Win Friends and Influence People in the Islamic World

By GREG WEIHER

OK, now it's official. The United States is taking lessons from Israel on appropriate ways to deal with the Arab and Islamic world.

This is clear in Seymour Hersh's story on Israeli-trained American death squads in the latest New Yorker, and Chalmers Johnson's December 3 article on the same subject on the Common Dreams website.

Of course, if you've been paying attention, the U.S.-Israel connection comes as no surprise. The U.S. occupying force in Iraq has been adopting tactics, one after the other, that mirror those used by the Israelis against the Palestinians. "No," you think to yourself. "Even Bush and the prevari-cons can't be that stupid. Even in all their arrogance they can't overlook the implications that such a parallel will have for U.S.-Arab relations." Well, unfortunately, it turns out they are, and they can. Much more at link.

If you have been following the Israeli/Palestinian and the US current treatment of 'insurgents' in Iraq, the article is nothing new. However, for those that haven't, it's a good primer to the parallels of the IDF's techniques, and that of the 'allied forces' now occupying Iraq.

Weekend news wrap. (to my one viewer -- in case you do not know, I do not have a television that is currently powered up. Hence, I do not watch any television whatever. My news is limited to that which I can read on the Internet)

In this AP piece (hat tip to ABC News and The Smirking Chimp), we learn that the dismal scientists AKA economists are predicting a fifty year outlook that is anything but pretty. Whole article below.

WASHINGTON Dec. 20 Keeping the federal budget at or near balance over the next 50 years could require painful tax increases, spending cuts or both, the Congressional Budget Office says.

In a look at the government's long-term budget outlook, Congress' nonpartisan fiscal analyst offered possible combinations of tax and spending changes, all of which would leave lawmakers choosing among politically unpalatable options.

Even so, some still would leave the government in fiscal peril. Yet, failing to act would drive the accumulated federal debt to unsustainable levels, said the study, released Friday.

"Taken to the extreme, such a path could result in an economic crisis," including the possibilities that foreign investors would pull out, the dollar's value plunge, interest rates and prices soar and stock markets collapse.

"The longer that lawmakers delay acting to counter an unsustainable budgetary situation, the larger the spending cuts or tax increases will eventually have to be," the 60-page study warned.

The big problem facing the government is the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, whose 76 million members will start later this decade relying on Social Security and Medicare and increase their use of Medicaid.

The budgets for those automatically paid benefits are also growing as medical costs continue to soar. The three programs provide pensions and medical insurance for the elderly, disabled and poor.

Social Security is so large, and Medicare and Medicaid are expanding so rapidly, that limiting the growth of defense, education and other spending that Congress controls would not be enough for sound budget policy, the report said.

"Substantial reductions in the projected growth of spending or a sizable increase in taxes as a share of the economy or both will probably be necessary to provide a significant likelihood of fiscal stability in the coming decades," the report said.

The study compared current and future spending and revenues to the size of the U.S. economy, now about $11 trillion. Economists consider the resulting percentage a useful way to measure the federal budget over time, because it illustrates how affordable particular programs or policies might be.

In the study, the budget office offered six hypothetical scenarios for restraining spending and raising taxes through 2050.

Highlighting how dire the long-range budget picture is, even the scenarios that let trillions of dollars in tax cuts enacted under President Bush expire, which would bring in piles of new revenue, would mean that "fiscal stability is not assured."

Of the six scenarios, three offered the chance of balanced budgets in 50 years.

But of the three, two used the politically unlikely assumption that the Bush tax reductions would expire. The third incorporated the improbable scenario that spending for Medicare and Medicaid would not keep pace with health-care costs, that spending for other benefits would shrink compared to the economy's size, and that other domestic programs would grow only with inflation.

In another scenario, revenues would rise from their current 16.2 percent of the economy to their historic 18.4 percent average, and spending for all programs but Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid would be less than half their current 9.6 percent of the economy. But "to prevent an indefinite spiraling of federal debt," spending on those three benefit programs would grow by no more than 0.5 percent annually over inflation, the report said.

The report's conclusions echoed numerous similar studies that have been done in recent years. But coming just as the calendar is to turn to a presidential and congressional election year, both parties tried using it to buttress their arguments for their favored budget policies.

"If spending is left unchecked, it could have a disastrous effect on the economy," said Rich Meade, Republican staff director of the House Budget Committee. "The bottom line is deficits do matter, and we need to address them."

Thomas Kahn, his Democratic counterpart, said, "The worst thing we could do is approve the Republican agenda, because its extra $1 trillion in new tax cuts would make the long-term budget problem even worse."

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Those wacky economists at the Congressional Budget Office. Crazy group. Of course the Bush response to this is..Drumm roll, please: More tax cuts!!! Talk about a zany parallel universe.



In The Death of Horatio Alger, Krugman dispels out a common myth perpetuated by Limbaugh, Bush, et al. Concerning the opportunities for upward financial mobility in present day America.

The other day I found myself reading a leftist rag that made outrageous claims about America. It said that we are becoming a society in which the poor tend to stay poor, no matter how hard they work; in which sons are much more likely to inherit the socioeconomic status of their father than they were a generation ago.

The name of the leftist rag? Business Week, which published an article titled "Waking Up From the American Dream." The article summarizes recent research showing that social mobility in the United States (which was never as high as legend had it) has declined considerably over the past few decades. If you put that research together with other research that shows a drastic increase in income and wealth inequality, you reach an uncomfortable conclusion: America looks more and more like a class-ridden society....

He continues... The myth of income mobility has always exceeded the reality: As a general rule, once they've reached their 30s, people don't move up and down the income ladder very much. Conservatives often cite studies like a 1992 report by Glenn Hubbard, a Treasury official under the elder Bush who later became chief economic adviser to the younger Bush, that purport to show large numbers of Americans moving from low-wage to high-wage jobs during their working lives. But what these studies measure, as the economist Kevin Murphy put it, is mainly "the guy who works in the college bookstore and has a real job by his early 30s." Serious studies that exclude this sort of pseudo-mobility show that inequality in average incomes over long periods isn't much smaller than inequality in annual incomes. Much More Reading.

Highly recommended.

Ross Baker tosses a softball in this Newsday piece, entitled "Hussein May Be Weapon for Dems."

George W. Bush has to restrain himself from running victory laps to celebrate the Saddam Hussein capture. Republican leaders are gleeful about facing a Democratic ticket likely led by Howard Dean. So, it may seem odd, even perverse, to suggest that rooting the Iraqi dictator out of his hole might actually be an ace-in-the-hole for Democrats.

For starters, seizing Hussein shifts the focus of the hunt for America's most dangerous enemies from Iraq to the rugged Afghanistan-Pakistan border where Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, the deposed leader of the Taliban, are said to lurk. As elusive as Hussein was in Iraq, the terrain around bin Laden's lair is far more forbidding and the population, if anything, more hostile to Americans and the chances of success less likely.

While Bush steadfastly maintains that somehow we have dealt the worldwide terrorist network a punishing blow by apprehending Hussein, most experts deny that the Iraqi ever fomented much terrorist activity against this country. The U.S. government itself concedes that an alleged meeting between an Iraqi intelligence agent and an al-Qaida operative in Prague before September 2001 never took place.

The president's boast that snaring Hussein was a major gain could easily blow up in his face if there is another outrage directed against this country. If such an attack were to take place before the 2004 election, it could spell real trouble for Bush and make the capture of Hussein appear less consequential. More at Link.

Recent polling suggests that Americans at large are a bit schizophrenic about Saddam's capture. President Bush's approval raring spiked roughly 9 points -- although it is difficult to ascertain how much of this is due to Hussein's capture and how much is due to an improving economy-- while a large majority felt that Saddam's capture did not make them safer. Oddly, support for the Iraqi war bounced a full ten percent. So, while Americans do not feel any safer due to Saddam's capture, they are more apt to be supportive of the Iraqi invasion and occupation because of it..truly odd. Shorter Baker: This is most likely a short term positive for Bush, but if there is another attack, or more casualties in Iraq, the pendulum will swing the other way.

Just a thought. Bill O'Reilly has committed himself to admitting on his television show on Fox, that he was wrong about Iraq and WMD. I think it's time that Bill swallow his pride and admit that he was wrong. Dead wrong. The warbloggers should admit this as well.

I am not a journo type(this should be abundantly clear from my lack of writing skill), but I am an MSEE, and being scientifically inclined, I must always weigh the evidence from the viewpoint of a skeptic. The evidence that the media felt was, "strong" and "compelling," I found to be lacking. Hussein's regime made a declarative statement that they were not harboring "WMD" and from that point on, it was the US Administration's duty to show real evidence to refute this claim. They simply did not. I am most certainly not a Hussein apologist, and I recall both Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice stating flatly during press conferences prior to 9/11, that, and I'll paraphrase, "Iraq is no threat to its neighbors or to the wider world, and that Iraq's WMD programs that existed prior to the Gulf War have been destroyed. There is no evidence that Iraq has restarted these programs."

It is obvious as to why they later made 180 degree statements counter to these earlier claims. It was simple political
leveraging. The Bush Administation needed to have both of these people on board, and they sullied their reputations by putting party over all else.

Hence from my standpoint, it was, and still is, incumbent on the administration to find WMD, and if not, to explain why they have not been found. No more stonewalling.



Same with the 9/11 evidence.

Same with Cheney's Energy Task Force documents.

A few thoughts about the past week. Saddam's capture seems to still be the story of the Beltway Brats.

Meanwhile, the Bush administration suffered a couple of courtroom setbacks. Democracy Now! has a couple of good interviews regarding this issue.

Whilst searching for news items about "C-Span Baghdad," I came across Christopher Allbritton's Back To Iraq blog. It seems a very good journal and analysis of all things Iraqi.

Since I've a huge issue with water in my basement, I'll post more later. Back to plumbing. :)

Bush In 30 Seconds.

>> 9/11 Preventable says Kean<<

Rush 'Lorcet' Limbaugh tries to pull a Cheney

Limbaugh tries to keep medical records sealed
Attorneys file court action against seizure in Florida

By Peter Franceschina

South Florida Sun-sentinel

Originally published December 16, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - Rush Limbaugh's attorneys went on the offensive yesterday, in an effort to keep the conservative radio commentator's medical records sealed after they recently were seized by prosecutors investigating his prescription drug use.......

......."Mr. Limbaugh has already suffered the indignity of watching a list of his doctors and medications dramatically leafed though on air by television reporters. One can only imagine the exposure these records will receive if the state is allowed access to them."

The motion also says Limbaugh is prevented from getting proper medical treatment because all of his original medical records are in the hands of prosecutors.

The rest of the story.

So, the best Rush's attorneys can come up with is that he can't get proper medical treatment because his original docs. are in the hands of prosecutors? Ya gotta be kiddin' me. I once needed a full medical history to present, and all I was able to get were COPIES of my own medical records.

I know that this is simply posturing by his attorneys, but a little creativity might serve his cause here.

Stupid Ursine Tricks

Over at "The Truth Laid Bear, " the baffled blogger poses this:

President Saddam -- Again?

December 14, 2003 08:36 AM

During the buildup to the war, and since, many who opposed the war declared it an "illegal" action and a violation of international law.

Now that he has been found to be alive, I'd ask this to those who considered this an illegitimate war: will you now stand up and demand that Hussein be placed back in power? He was, after all, the "legal" ruler of Iraq.

And if not, why not?

It is just this sort of false dichotomy that right of center types use in an attempt to ensnare those that oppose their worldviews.

We at pure bs prefer to take a different tact. Ask those who were pro-war what they would do when unabashed, unrepentant war hawks like Richard Perle admit that the invasion and subsequent occupation were illegal. But you jest, I hear you ask. Here is Perle in his own words as reported by UK Newspaper The Guardian:

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

Mr Perle, who was speaking at an event organised by the Institute of Contemporary Arts in London, had argued loudly for the toppling of the Iraqi dictator since the end of the 1991 Gulf war....more

I refuse to link to TTLB, because of the absurdity of his(?) mode of questioning.

Beware of baffled bruins bearing bogus biddings.

pure bs exclusive -- Texas woman violates Erotic Weapons Convention Ban

Texas housewife busted for hawking erotic, dual use toys
Sales rep for Brisbane firm sold vibrator to undercover agents

A Texas housewife is in big trouble with the law for selling a dual use device, AKA a 'vibrator' to a pair of undercover cops, and the Brisbane Vibrator Company® she works for says Texas is an "antiquated place'' with more than its share of "prudes.''

Joanne Webb, a former fifth-grade teacher and mother of three, was in a county court in Cleburne, Texas, on Monday to answer anti-terroism charges for selling the vibrator to undercover narcotics officers posing as a dysfunctional married couple in search of a sex aid. This is a breach of EWC articles 12 and 14. Article 12 states: "No person or persons of a country which is a party to the EWC shall produce, sell or through their actions, proceed in the direction of acquiring banned agents."

The so-called "vibrator" in question is such a banned item. While having some functionality as a 'personal massage device,' the device can also be used for the expressly prohibited purpose of: "Causing intense physical pleasure, resulting in orgasm, or in the absence of orgasm, large grins."

Article 14 of the EWC, states: "No person or persons of a country which is a party to the EWC shall produce, sell or through their actions, proceed in the direction of acquiring banned precusor agents that may be used to produce another device, or the mental and/or physical desire to acquire such agents." Ms. Webb's alleged possession and sale of, a "vibrator," violates both the spirit and intent of the law on this count. From the EWC: "Vibrator(s) have a high likelihood of causing the user(s) to pursue other more erotically stimulating agents, including but not limited to 'strap-on extensions, higher voltage devices, "Ben wa balls" and pneumatic, or hydraulic devices."

Webb, a saleswoman for Passion Parties of Brisbane, faces a year in jail and a $4,000 fine if convicted.

"What I did was not obscene,'' Webb said. ""What's obscene is that the government is taking action about what we do in our bedrooms.''

The arrest of Webb in Cleburne, a small town 50 miles southwest of Dallas, was the first time that any of the company's 3,000 sales consultants have been busted, said Pat Davis, the president of Passion Parties. She said the company was outraged by the charges and stood behind Webb....more debauchery

We at pure bs are of the opinion that the EWC is a kneejerk reaction to the horrific events of 9/11. US Attorney General John Ashcroft used America's feelings of vulnerability post 9/11 to 'ram through' this onerous legislation.

Krugman's In

On the Cheney/Halliburton/War Profiteering story.

Patriots and Profits

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last week there were major news stories about possible profiteering by Halliburton and other American contractors in Iraq. These stories have, inevitably and appropriately, been pushed temporarily into the background by the news of Saddam's capture. But the questions remain. In fact, the more you look into this issue, the more you worry that we have entered a new era of excess for the military-industrial complex.

The story about Halliburton's strangely expensive gasoline imports into Iraq gets curiouser and curiouser. High-priced gasoline was purchased from a supplier whose name is unfamiliar to industry experts, but that appears to be run by a prominent Kuwaiti family (no doubt still grateful for the 1991 liberation). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers documents seen by The Wall Street Journal refer to "political pressures" from Kuwait's government and the U.S. embassy in Kuwait to deal only with that firm. I wonder where that trail leads.

Meanwhile, NBC News has obtained Pentagon inspection reports of unsanitary conditions at mess halls run by Halliburton in Iraq: "Blood all over the floors of refrigerators, dirty pans, dirty grills, dirty salad bars, rotting meat and vegetables." An October report complains that Halliburton had promised to fix the problem but didn't.

And more detail has been emerging about Bechtel's much-touted school repairs. Again, a Pentagon report found "horrible" work: dangerous debris left in playground areas, sloppy paint jobs and broken toilets.

Are these isolated bad examples, or part of a pattern? It's impossible to be sure without a broad, scrupulously independent investigation. Yet such an inquiry is hard to imagine in the current political environment — which is precisely why one can't help suspecting the worst.

Let's be clear: worries about profiteering aren't a left-right issue. Conservatives have long warned that regulatory agencies tend to be "captured" by the industries they regulate; the same must be true of agencies that hand out contracts. Halliburton, Bechtel and other major contractors in Iraq have invested heavily in political influence, not just through campaign contributions, but by enriching people they believe might be helpful. Dick Cheney is part of a long if not exactly proud tradition: Brown & Root, which later became the Halliburton subsidiary doing those dubious deals in Iraq, profited handsomely from its early support of a young politician named Lyndon Johnson.

So is there any reason to think that things are worse now? Yes.

The biggest curb on profiteering in government contracts is the threat of exposure: sunshine is the best disinfectant. Yet it's hard to think of a time when U.S. government dealings have been less subject to scrutiny.

First of all, we have one-party rule — and it's a highly disciplined, follow-your-orders party. There are members of Congress eager and willing to take on the profiteers, but they don't have the power to issue subpoenas.

And getting information without subpoena power has become much harder because, as a new report in U.S. News & World Report puts it, the Bush administration has "dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government." Since 9/11, the administration has invoked national security to justify this secrecy, but it actually began the day President Bush took office.

To top it all off, after 9/11 the U.S. media — which eagerly played up the merest hint of scandal during the Clinton years — became highly protective of the majesty of the office. As the stories I've cited indicate, they have become more searching lately. But even now, compare British and U.S. coverage of the Neil Bush saga.

The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories that have come to light aren't isolated examples.

Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility of profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of Harry Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was serving his country.

On the strength of that record, Franklin Roosevelt chose Truman as his vice president. George Bush, of course, chose Dick Cheney. NYT Link.

In a hopefully unrelated but certain-to-be-embarrassing-note, the Supremes are going to hear Cheney's appeal regarding his failure to disclose his energy policy task force documents. Remember, this thing has been going on for a couple of years now, and three lower courts have ruled that Cheney must turn over the documents. Will we find the truth? The answer is expected in June.

I read this rational article at the usually rational Tom Paine.com and have asked permission to reprint it here. I haven't gotten permission as of yet, but it will either stay or come down once that issue is settled. All notices are intact. I have also provided a link to the article.

I really don't like the expression, "common sense." If sense were a common commodity, the world wouldn't be on life support. Criminy.

Uncommon Sense

The Problem Prisoner

Robert Dreyfuss is a freelance writer based in Alexandria, Virginia, who specializes in politics and national security issues.

Read the following paragraph and see what you’d change about it now that Saddam Hussein has been captured:

The U.S. war in Iraq was an illegal and unjustified use of unilateral American power, based on presidential lies and exaggerations about the threat to the United States posed by Iraq’s apparently nonexistent weapons and ties to terrorism. It has pushed Iraq into chaos, whose ultimate outcome is likely to be a civil war among its feuding ethnic blocs and the rise of an Iranian-style theocratic government led by militant Shiite clerics. In the process, President Bush has destroyed America’s prestige abroad, shattered its alliances, frittered away the goodwill toward the United States that emerged after 9/11 and established a precedent for preventive wars that can be used to justify aggressive military action in a dozen conflicts around the world.

But he got Saddam.

What does it mean? It’s better, first, to look at what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean that the Iraqi insurgency will halt—it’s clear, by now, that the fighters in Iraq are mostly nationalists who oppose the U.S. occupation and Islamists who see the U.S. presence as an opportunity to strike blows against the Great Satan. It doesn’t mean a victory in the War on Terrorism; that’s Osama’s bailiwick, and Saddam never had any connection to terrorism in the first place. It doesn’t mean that Iraq’s rival factions are likely to set aside their differences and cooperate hunkily-dorily under Jerry Bremer’s umbrella.

And it doesn’t say much about U.S. military and intelligence prowess. What’s remarkable about his capture is not that he was found—after all, unlike the WMD, Saddam was actually there—but that it took so long. From the beginning, in March, there was never any doubt that Saddam would be captured or killed. Invading Iraq, by far the weakest point on the Axis of Evil, was not much of a challenge militarily: its armed forces were already devastated, eviscerated by the first Gulf War and 12 years of an embargo. But, a combination of poor military planning, bad intelligence and a misreading of Iraqi feelings about the U.S. occupation allowed Saddam to hide for nine months. That’s in part because a nation that was supposed to welcome American troops with open arms greeted them, instead, with arms.

Here is what it does mean.

First, Saddam’s capture will present a significant political problem for Bush & Co. All by himself, Saddam can unravel the supposed mystery of Iraq’s missing weapons of mass destruction. Call him a liar, but on this subject he can tell the truth. Iraq’s WMD were virtually extinguished in 1991, and lingering remnants dealt with by UN inspectors in the early '90s. Already, according to Time, Saddam in captivity ridiculed the WMD issue. “Saddam was... asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction,” reported Time. "‘No, of course not,’ he replied, according to [a U.S.] official, ‘the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.’" In coming weeks, unless the United States manages to muzzle Saddam and suppress leaks—not likely—Saddam can highlight Bush’s prevarications on WMD and terrorism.

Second, it means that the United States and its puppet governing council in Iraq will have yet another showdown with the world community over Saddam’s trial. The United States and its allies would like a quick show trial and an execution; James Woolsey—the former CIA director and one of the leading advocates since the 1990s for war in Iraq—has already called for a hanging, and Ahmad Chalabi, the leader of the Iraqi National Congress and the Pentagon’s chief Iraqi ally, says that preparations for a trial are already underway. But human rights groups, the UN and others in the world community will insist on a Milosevic-style international proceeding, sans death penalty.

Both of these problems could have been avoided had Saddam, like his sons, been killed rather than captured alive. The fact that he wasn’t is a tribute to the rationality and good sense of U.S. military units who seized him, but the fact that Saddam didn’t kill himself or fight back is a sign that he believes he can engage in yet more mischief as a prisoner, perhaps in an effort to rehabilitate his legacy or to justify himself as the last of the old-style Arab nationalists. Keeping him alive now is the job of the U.S. military, amid a swirl of political forces that would like him dead. Though he has apparently been spirited away to Qatar, he will have to be returned to Iraq for the inquest and trial. And Iraq, at the very least, is a nation of a thousand Jack Rubys. Link.

The above expresses my feelings about the capture of Hussein as well as anything I'm liable to pen.

Anything for a Buck

The mind stopping stupidity of the media goes on. A few posts below I gave a quick synopsis of today's US stock market action. Now I am sure that Vivian Chu had this all ready to go at press time, and couldn't simply opt out. So, this is what we get:

Analysts See Bigger Stock Rally -If Bin Laden Found

Mon December 15, 2003 05:01 PM ET

(Page 1 of 2)

By Vivian Chu
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein gave an initial boost to stock markets worldwide on Monday, leading some analysts to believe that a bigger rally would occur if the United States reels in Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Market players said capturing the elusive al Qaeda leader would give stock markets a significant boost, at least in the short term, since bin Laden is seen as having a more direct link to global terrorism than Saddam Hussein.

"Osama bin Laden has a more direct impact on the global war on terror, so the impact (from his capture) would be larger than what we're seeing after Saddam's capture," said Peter Gottlieb, president of Gottlieb Investment Management Corp. in Chicago.

News that U.S. troops had captured the former Iraqi dictator over the weekend sparked early rallies in stock markets from Tokyo to London and New York on Monday, only to peter out by the close of trade in some locales.

"I'm somewhat surprised the gains aren't bigger, but the feeling is that major military operations were already completed and Saddam's capture was inevitable," Gottlieb said. "It also won't affect the outcome of the U.S. presence in Iraq."

On Wall Street, the three major U.S. stock indexes finished lower, erasing earlier gains, as investors digested news of Saddam's capture.

But Japan's benchmark Nikkei average surged more than 3 percent, while Britain's FTSE 100 ended nearly unchanged after rallying earlier in the session.

MAN IN CHARGE

Unlike Saddam -- who did not appear to be in charge of leading Iraqi resistance when he was caught hiding in a hole at an isolated farm -- bin Laden appears to be more firmly in control and capable of mobilizing members of al Qaeda, the militant group behind the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, market analysts said......Lots more

So, here we have two non-stories. First, the early rally not only faded, but the US indices, save for metals, ended the day in the red, and secondly, the "Osama Factor"™ is UNKNOWN.

Shorter version. Markets' reaction to Hussein capture negligible. Osama Factor™, unknown and unknowable. If and when we find OBL, any number of things could be far more important. They get paid to write this stuff. Meh.

In true non-partisan pure bs manner, I have chosen to back a candidate from the GOP in the upcoming primaries.

G.W. Bush is far too reactionary, extremist, fiscally irresponsible -- and let's not mince words here -- full of shit to be entrusted with the reins of US power. Pure bs endorses self-made millionaire Blake Ashby for President.

Visit Mr. Ashby's site, here, and vote, for a change.

Stock Market Prognosticators WRONG!

CBS MarketWatch was crowing yesterday about a, "Saddam Capture Rally All But Assured," and indeed in pre-opening trading, futures prices were indeed trending higher, following gains in Asian and European markets. But as the day wore on, all three of the major US indices lost ground, and all three ultimately ended in the red. The NASDAQ Composite losing the most ground, roughly 30.75 points, or 1.6%.

After digesting all of the good cheer associated with Hussein's arrest, the markets ended the day with a hangover. The markets are generally a good indicator as to the gravity of a situation, and the weekend's capture of Hussein appears to have been a wash.

The loss was pretty much across all industry sectors with semi-conductors, and retailers amongst the days biggest losers. Wal*Mart gave a sales projection update, with sales tracking at the lower end of their earlier guidance.

Another in our McJobs™ series

IBM reportedly to outsource programming jobs overseas

Responding to a Wall Street Journal article that cited internal documents describing plans to relocate thousands of programming jobs overseas, IBM on Monday said it expected overall hiring to increase in the United States.

The company declined to comment on "internal presentations or projections," but said that any growth in application services jobs in India, China and Latin America would be attributed to winning new contracts.

"We expect our hiring next year in the U.S. to equal or increase over 2003 levels. In fact, on a percentage basis, our forecast is for hiring across the Americas to outpace the hiring in the rest of the world," the company said in a statement.

The Wall Street Journal article, which appeared Monday, described plans to shift 4,730 programming jobs overseas. The job changes within the company's Application Management Services group were to be felt in Southbury, Conn., Poughkeepsie, Raleigh, N.C., Dallas, Boulder, Colo., and at other sites around the country.....More

People wonder why I am skeptical of the future economic success of this country. As I've tried to elucidate on these pages, the economic woes of this country are trending downward. Real income growth is dead, the baby boomers are on the cusp of retirement, and our workforce is largely un-educated in relation to the types of tasks that current and future employers are demanding.

As a tail-end baby boomer, I've twenty plus years until retirement. My personal situation is pretty secure. Many of my current and past colleagues have been directly effected by the trend toward outsourcing of IT jobs.

It's official "Write Like Nedra Pickler Day."

In that spirit I offer this:

Saletan shills for Dean, while Iraqi's Dance

Nedra Pickler -- AP(Crawford, TX)

William Saletan, self styled 'political correspondent,' isn't jumping aboard the 'Democrats Are Dead Express', as all truly intuitive pundits are busily doing today.

While his anti-American screed has an enticing title, Is Dean toast? and sounds very promising, Saletan goes on to make the utterly absurd argument -- if I may use that strong a term -- that Dean's bid for the presidency is not completely dead.

While Saletan makes a case for the lack of people's memories, and cites recent presidential campaigns as supporting evidence, Saletan fails to state the obvious case that Bush has won the respect and admiration of the American people with his frank, genuine addressing of all of their concerns. From the casus belli in the iraqi war, that is, enormous quantities of WMD, and their locations, to his Nixonian handling of the Presidential Daily Briefs, through the President's badger-like determination to find the leaker of name of one Valerie Plame, this man, our President, has shown a steely resolve.

While precious little in the hunt for banned weapons has been found to this point, I have little doubt that President Bush will personally offer his services in the conducting of further searches, rather than spend a month or two in Crawford with his Pioneer and Ranger donors. That is the kind of man we have leading our country.

My God that man in the flight suit turns me on.

Oh, and Laura dear, would you mind terribly refreshing my glass?

Thanks, hon.

Damn, I'm a fine writer.

From the

"Dick Cheney Worldview of Fuck You"

comes this gem:

High Payments to Halliburton for Fuel in Iraq

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

The United States government is paying the Halliburton Company an average of $2.64 a gallon to import gasoline and other fuel to Iraq from Kuwait, more than twice what others are paying to truck in Kuwaiti fuel, government documents show.

Halliburton, which has the exclusive United States contract to import fuel into Iraq, subcontracts the work to a Kuwaiti firm, government officials said. But Halliburton gets 26 cents a gallon for its overhead and fee, according to documents from the Army Corps of Engineers.

The cost of the imported fuel first came to public attention in October when two senior Democrats in Congress criticized Halliburton, the huge Houston-based oil-field services company, for "inflating gasoline prices at a great cost to American taxpayers." At the time, it was estimated that Halliburton was charging the United States government and Iraq's oil-for-food program an average of about $1.60 a gallon for fuel available for 71 cents wholesale.

But a breakdown of fuel costs, contained in Army Corps documents recently provided to Democratic Congressional investigators and shared with The New York Times, shows that Halliburton is charging $2.64 for a gallon of fuel it imports from Kuwait and $1.24 per gallon for fuel from Turkey.

A spokeswoman for Halliburton, Wendy Hall, defended the company's pricing. "It is expensive to purchase, ship, and deliver fuel into a wartime situation, especially when you are limited by short-duration contracting," she said. She said the company's Kellogg Brown & Root unit, which administers the contract, must work in a "hazardous" and "hostile environment," and that its profit on the contract is small.

The price of fuel sold in Iraq, set by the government, is 5 cents to 15 cents a gallon. The price is a political issue, and has not been raised to avoid another hardship for Iraqis.

The Iraqi state oil company and the Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center import fuel from Kuwait for less than half of Halliburton's price, the records show.

Ms. Hall said Halliburton's subcontractor had had more than 20 trucks damaged or stolen, nine drivers injured and one driver killed when making fuel runs into Iraq.

She said the contract was also expensive because it was hard to find a company with the trucks necessary to move the fuel, and because Halliburton is only able to negotiate a 30-day contract for fuel. "It is not as simple as dropping by a service station for a fill-up," she said.

A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers, Bob Faletti, also defended the price of imported fuel.

"Everyone is talking about high costs, but no one is talking about the dangers, or the number of fuel trucks that have been blown up," Mr. Faletti said. "That's the reason it is so expensive." He said recent government audits had found no improprieties in the Halliburton contract.

Gasoline imports are one of the largest costs of Iraqi reconstruction efforts so far. Although Iraq sits on the third-largest oil reserves in the world, production has been hampered by pipeline sabotage, power failures and an antiquated infrastructure that was hurt by 11 years of United Nations sanctions.

Nearly $500 million has already been spent to bring gas, benzene and other fuels into Iraq, according to the corps. And as part of the $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that President Bush signed last month, $18.6 billion will be spent on reconstruction projects, including $690 million for gasoline and other fuel imports in 2004.

From May to late October, Halliburton imported about 61 million gallons of fuel from Kuwait and about 179 million from Turkey, at a total cost of more than $383 million.

A company's profits on the transport and sale of gasoline are usually razor-thin, with companies losing contracts if they overbid by half a penny a gallon. Independent experts who reviewed Halliburton's percentage of its gas importation contract said the company's 26-cent charge per gallon of gas from Kuwait appeared to be extremely high.

"I have never seen anything like this in my life," said Phil Verleger, a California oil economist and the president of the consulting firm PK Verleger LLC. "That's a monopoly premium — that's the only term to describe it. Every logistical firm or oil subsidiary in the United States and Europe would salivate to have that sort of contract."

In March, Halliburton was awarded a no-competition contract to repair Iraq's oil industry, and it has already received more than $1.4 billion in work. That award has been the focus of Congressional scrutiny in part because Vice President Dick Cheney is Halliburton's former chief executive officer. As part of its contract, Halliburton began importing fuel in the spring when gasoline was in short supply in large Iraqi cities.

The government's accounting shows that Halliburton paid its Kuwait subcontractor $1.17 a gallon, when it was selling for 71 cents a gallon wholesale in the Middle East.

In addition, Halliburton is paying $1.21 a gallon to transport the fuel an estimated 400 miles from Kuwait to Iraq, the documents show. It is paying 22 cents a gallon to transport gas into Iraq from Turkey.

The 26 cents a gallon it keeps includes a 2-cent fee and 24 cents for "mark-up costs," the documents show. The mark-up portion is intended to cover the overhead for administering the contract.

Ms. Hall of Halliburton said it was "misleading" for the corps to call it a mark-up. "This simply means overhead costs, which includes the general and administrative costs like light bulbs, paper and employees," she said. "These costs are specifically allowable under the contract with the Corps of Engineers, are defined by detailed regulations, and are scrutinized and approved by U.S. government auditors."

In recent weeks, the costs of importing fuel from Kuwait have risen. Figures provided recently to Congressional investigators by the corps show that Halliburton was charging as much as $3.06 per gallon for fuel from Kuwait in late November.

If the corps concludes that Halliburton has successfully administered the gas contract, it could be paid an additional 5 percent of the total value of the gas it imported.

Halliburton's Kuwait subcontractor was hired in May. Halliburton and the Army Corps of Engineers refused to identify the company, citing security reasons. Aides to Representative Henry A. Waxman, the California Democrat who has been a critic of the fuel contract, said government officials had identified it as the Altanmia Commercial Marketing Company. Several independent petroleum experts in the Middle East and the United States said they had not heard of Altanmia.

Copies of the Army Corps documents were given to Mr. Waxman's office, which provided them to The Times.

Iraqi's state oil company, SOMO, pays 96 cents a gallon to bring in gas, which includes the cost of gasoline and transportation costs, the aides to Mr. Waxman said. The gasoline transported by SOMO — and by Halliburton's subcontractor — are delivered to the same depots in Iraq and often use the same military escorts.

The Pentagon's Defense Energy Support Center pays $1.08 to $1.19 per gallon for the gas it imports from Kuwait, Congressional aides said. That includes the price of the gas and its transportation costs.

The money for Halliburton's gas contract has come principally from the United Nations oil-for-food program, though some of the costs have been borne by American taxpayers. In the appropriations bill signed by Mr. Bush last month, taxpayers will subsidize all gas importation costs beginning early next year.

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Waxman responded to the latest information on to costs of the Halliburton contract. "It's inexcusable that Americans are being charged absurdly high prices to buy gasoline for Iraqis and outrageous that the White House is letting it happen," he said. link

Of course, Mr. Bush has assured us that the matter will be handled. Isn't that right Kenny boy? ;)

I guess this clinches it. unelectable.com is a redirect to the biography of George W. Bush. Heh. kids!

The threat from within.

From the NYT:

Our Enemies at Home
By DANIEL LEVITAS

ATLANTA

In April, as Baghdad fell and American soldiers began searching for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, federal officials uncovered a cache of deadly chemicals much closer to home — in the eastern Texas town of Noonday. The stockpile included a fully functional sodium cyanide bomb capable of killing hundreds, as well as neo-Nazi and antigovernment literature, illegal weapons, half a million rounds of ammunition, and more than 100 explosives, including bombs disguised as suitcases.

William Krar, a 62-year-old manufacturer of gun parts and a right-wing extremist who had rented the storage locker in which the cache was found, has pleaded guilty in federal court to possessing a chemical weapon and faces a possible life sentence. Two others — Judith L. Bruey, Mr. Krar's companion, and Edward Feltus, a member of a parmilitary group called the New Jersey Militia — are awaiting sentencing.

An isolated incident involving a few Americans on the far-right fringe? Most people probably assume so, but federal authorities served more than 150 subpeonas in the case, and are still searching for others who may have been involved.

The Noonday case shows just how serious a threat we face from domestic terrorists. Consider this year's other high-profile incident involving rightist causes: the arrest of Eric Rudolph, accused of bombing abortion clinics and the 1996 Olympics. During his five years in the wilderness, he was often viewed by the public and press as a lone fugitive. But law enforcement officials have linked him to two national movements: the Army of God, a biblically inspired underground network of anti-abortion extremists; and the Christian Identity movement, whose members believe that Jews are the literal children of Satan, nonwhites are sub-human, and that Anglo-Saxon Christians are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. More...

Thanks to Dave Neiwert at Orcinus for the heads-up.

Now here is where someone with a background in toxicology would be of assistance. That person is not me. I am a VLSI(Very Large Scale Integration..ya know..semi-conductors) Engineer, with an interest in many things.

In various news accounts, the Sodium Cyanide device has been memtioned as being able to kill even thousands of people. If this is not a binary weapon(see below), the far greater danger comes from the immediate explosion and schrapnel than from the Cyanide. Sodium Cyanide(NaCN) is a crystalline powder, and while acutely toxic, is not likely to cause large numbers of additional injuries or death in and of itself. Purely a terror device.

I am always in search of truth, and I cannot help but wonder if the device in question is a binary device. A binary device is one that uses a reaction immediately prior to, or during delivery combining two chemical, into one with much more lethality. A binary device using NaCN plus another agent could easily produce Hydrogen Cyanide, as was used in Nazi Germany to kill millions. It is the liberation of HCN that would prove most worrisome.

I am heartened by law enforcement's abilities to stop home-grown terrorists. Read the entire NYC article.

ON Edit: It just occurred to me how much these homegrown terrorists have in common with those that attacked us on 9/11. They both have expressed desires to see a theocratic state, use violence in an attempt to achive those goals, and are very pronounced racists. Just a few random thoughts.

Saddam is in custody. This is really good news. There is some chatter about Saddam being tried in Iraq. CNN showed the infamous Rumsfeld/Saddam handshake this AM.

It will be curious to see what we can learn about US/Iraq relations over the years. Will Saddam be allowed to talk? I do not think so. Since the US supported him for a couple of decades under the notion of, 'the enemy of my enemy....' , he knows much about the West's somewhat troubling past. As well as the very recent past.

Richard Perle's recent admission that the prosecution of the Iraq war was illegal under international law, along with the lack of any hard evidence of post 1991 chem/bio/nuclear weapons programs does concern me that everything Saddam knows will never see the light of day.

Congratulations to our forces on a job well done. Now, let us have the courage to let Saddam tell his story before he is most likely to be face execution.

Already, pundits have claimed that this hurts the Democrats running for President. Especially Howard Dean. I do no think that this is so. It is more of a booster shot for Bush, but does not alter any of the reasons that we prosecuted this war. Until we know what the fallout from the Iraq war is, we should not make hasty proclamations.

It will most likely be decades before we know what the implications of our actions are. So far, everything save for the initial war prosecution has gone poorly for this administration, and the world at large.

Newsweek: Schizophrenia on the web.

Yesterday, Eleanor Clift writes a bit about Dean and hand wringing of the Beltway Democrats, while today..The same publication releases the results of a poll, showing Dean's star rising, whilst Bush's numbers are the lowest in Newsweek's history. Perhaps after their recess, the movers and shakers of the Democratic party will show some support of Dean.

If voters are at all interested in what is truly in their best interests'(and there is much precedent that they don't vote this way), then anyone but Bush would be a shoo-in.

A-List blogger Atrios has declared Monday Dec. 15th to be, "Write like Nedra Pickler" day.

Democratic front-runner Howard Dean of Vermont acknowledged that Al 'Qaeda' Gore's endorsement has "been beneficial", and gave Gore a nod in making the World Widw Web available to all, while neglecting to add that if it wasn't for Ben Franklin's experiments with electricity, his internet success would have never been possible.

Fuck!! My entire ~1000 words or so concerning the US and global job markets present and future just got nixed by a power outage. Argggh!!!

Shorter version:

Short term solution: Job retraining likely to result in lower paying, but better than McJobs.

Longer term: Attempt to bring rest of world up to US standards in all areas of work environment.

Prognosis:

Short term: outlook reasonable chances for success

Long term: outlook continued to be plagued by continually changing nations with younger work forces.

Okay. I was just at Atrios' site, and there is more about an AP writer named Nedra Pickler. If you take a look at her(?) writing style, you'll note an oddly disassociated manner. Try Googling.

Ms.(?) Pickler, in an effort to in her words, "Cover both sides of an issue," inserts the oddest of personal editorial in what should be straight news coverage. We here at PureBS™ are non-partisan. We simply point out that things are not always what they seem.

The thing that struck Atrios, and me as well, about her story in the Washington post here, is that in a straight news story with the byline Surging Front-Runner Dean Under Attack, Pickler adds this intuitive gem: "But when he criticizes Bush's links to Lay, Dean never mentions that Enron's mismanagement was not the result of the president's tax-cut package."

Odd to say the least. Nor does he(Howard Dean) mention the Invisible Pink Unicorn Theory to describe the universe. Both statements are equally spurious. Ms.(?) Pickler does not seem to be able to differentiate between hard news and editorial. I am certain that this is a blindspot that a large quantity of my fellow Americans have as well.

On a more interesting note, that paradigm of morality, Rush Limbaugh, has taken note of Ms.(?) Pickler's work and -- here's the shocker -- has thrown his support behind the AP reporter. Ms. Pickler's balancing act has not added much of value to the national discourse, and Rush's support may be an indication that Ms.(?) Pickler's job with the AP may be on life support. More to follow, I'm sure.

Today's reading assignments:

Salon..everything.

The NYT Reports on CT Governor John Rowland's(R-Reprehensible) shenanigans..Can you say, 'recall?' He may cede the office without another Californian style coup.

On an interesting note, Democratic frontrunner, Howard Dean, is winning converts as well as raking in the dough. Eveything that Dean has wanted, he has gotten. I read an article -- can't find it now -- that detailed Dean's long string of successes. With Gore's endorsement, he has gotten the inside the beltway nod that he was missing. I think that the media, in trying to make Gore's endorsement into a non-issue, have really created the story here.

The unelectable Bush pisses off everyone.

Okay. The dynamic between Bush, Cheney, Halliburton, France, Germany, Canada, Great Britain, some GOP members, the UN, the Pentagon and whomever is really in charge in Iraq is simple.

Oh, I know, you'll hear all manner of Bush policy apologists telling you it's not their guy's fault. Bollocks. Everything, from the Halliburton billing fiasco to the row over -- and let's be adults here, and call the Iraqi 'obstructionists', the countries that got the WMD issue right -- the issuing of rebuilding contracts, to the cancellation of debt...is dubya's fault. If you want to play commander-in-chief, it's a four year commitment.

Additional color regarding the issuance of contracts here.

A taste of Halliburton's greed here.

Finally, a smattering of James Baker's Excellent Debt Adventure. Odd that ol' Jim still serves as senior counsel to the Carlyle Group. Can you say conflict of interest? Very good.

Now that we've cleared the air, it's time to polka!!

Note: If this seems a bit of a ramble, it is due in part to my being dreadfully tired. I know that my sentence structure could use work. Oh well.

Hungry? Out of Work? The Bush Recovery™ not working for you?

We explain a bit. Mind you, this recovery is now in its (drum roll, please) 23rd month. No, that is not a misprint. As you may have guessed, this is far from an average recovery. A few figures:

The economy has gained 330,000 jobs since August, lagging about 7 million jobs behind the normal hiring cycle after a recession, says Stephen Roach, Morgan Stanley’s chief economist.

The jobs picture is even bleaker if you remember that the economy has lost 2.8 million relatively high-paying manufacturing jobs since the start of the down cycle. According to the Economic Policy Institute, the average manufacturing worker who is laid off takes a 13% to 14% wage cut in his or her new job.

Many of this recovery’s new jobs come with fewer benefits. But even those companies that continue to provide solid benefits are passing on more of that cost. According to Hewitt Associates, employees can expect to pay 23% of the cost of their own health-care benefits in 2004, up from 21% in 2003.

Things are far from robust. Tomorrow, we'll offer more color to the continued economc malaise, and offer some short, and long term solutions.

Bob Somerby

Well, okay..not Bob Somerby, but this is his turf..CNN(Clearly Not News)'s Bill Schneider offers up this byline:

Gore reinvents himself yet again

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Remember how Al Gore kept re-inventing himself during the 2000 campaign? He's still at it.

This week, the newest Al Gore showed up to claim the political Play of the Week.

Former Vice President Al Gore joins the revolution! Gore, the ultimate party insider, has cast his lot with Howard Dean's outsiders.

Gore's endorsement doesn't just make Dean the man to beat. It also transforms Gore into a man with a future. Gore is clearly impressed by Dean's army of energetic, Internet-savvy political insurgents.

"Howard Dean really is the only candidate who has been able to inspire, at the grassroots level all over this country, the kind of passion and enthusiasm for democracy and change and transformation of America that we need in this country," said Gore on Tuesday.

There's a political movement going on out there.

"What even we underestimated was the huge response that we've gotten in terms of the resources, the energy, the number of people out there leafleting and talking about Howard Dean," said Joe Trippi, Dean's campaign manager, on October 17.

Al Gore doesn't want to stop it. He wants to be part of it. More blather.

**********************************************************

Mr. Schneider and his League Of Pundits Know that you know that Gore re-invents himself...why? Because they've been telling you so for years. Of course they never get around to telling you exactly how Mr. Gore transforms. That is simply because what they know you know is a fabrication.

UPDATE

Aunti Idiot Aryan calls off shock troops. Brownshirts in despair..Story here. More at eleven!!

Civility Declared Dead

In a startlingly chilling episode best explained by David Neiwert's excellent series: Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An exegesis, self-styled "anti-idiotarian" Emperor Misha I...the pseudonym for an anonymous blogger of the fascist bent..has put out nothing short of a cyber bounty of sorts against Eric A. Blumrich, replete with a map, and a "signed coffee mug" for a reward should one of his(?) minions find Mr. Blumrich's head on a pike. I'll not link to Auntie Idiot Aryan's site because he(?) doesn't need further rewards for his(?) misdeeds.

Here's a link to another's thoughts about the matter. Yeah, I know, it's an About.com agnosticism/atheism site, but of the four sites that I found that had commentary about this repugnant issue, it has the best synopsis.

I urge any and all readers to bookmark and read Neiwert's excellent Fascism series. It's in layman's term yet borrows much from scholarly texts.

**************************

*sigh*

Lovely.

WASHINGTON Dec. 11 — Pentagon auditors found that Vice President Dick Cheney's former company overcharged by possibly as much as $61 million for gasoline in Iraq, senior defense officials said Thursday.

Halliburton's subsidiary, Kellogg Brown & Root, also submitted a proposal for cafeteria services that was $67 million too high, the officials said speaking on the condition of anonymity. The officials said the Pentagon rejected that proposal.

The Pentagon officials said they were concerned about the problems with KBR's contracts, which were awarded without competitive bidding for up to $15.6 billion.

"Contractor improprieties and/or contract mischarging on department contracts will neither be condoned nor allowed to continue," Dov Zakheim, the Pentagon's budget chief, said Thursday.

Defense officials said the Pentagon was negotiating with KBR over how to resolve the fuel overcharging issue.

As uncurious George would say.."corporate malfeance."

****************************************

I know how to solve this issue. Get Cheney's cronies hands' out of the pie!

It's a good day to be an American.

Unelectable. The biography of George W. Bush.

I need some answers, dammit!!

Today's questions:

1) What is the status of the 'investigation' of the Valerie Plame investigation?

2) What is the status of requiring electronic voting machines to print a paper document? Nationwide and voter reviewed is the only acceptable solution.

3) What is the status of the new WMD search in Iraq? David Kay(not a scientist), where are you?

That is all.

I need answers, dammit!!

More RUSH..and a little Bush.

Evan's shills for el RUSHbo, while Bush attempts to remake ties between 9/11 and the Ba'athist's

First, I think at this juncture that Limbaugh should not be allowed to 'pain away' his addiction to hillbilly heroin, Lorcet, etc. Evan Thomas over at Newsweek apparently knows otherwise.

Quiddity at Uggabugga isn't buying Evan's spin, and neither am I.

If someone really knew that Limbaugh was in excruciating pain for years..I would think that they would have come forward by now. But if you read Evans' Newsweek piece, there may not have been anyone close enough to Limbaugh to know the real extant of his alleged suffering. Until there is evidence contrary to the fact that Rush played in numerous golf tournaments over the past six years--without apparent pain--then Rush's drug use must be viewed as common addiction. In short, it was to catch a buzz.

On to little George's day.

Bush forgets last month's statements

Mr. Bush apparently forgot about his recent remarks that Saddam, Irag and the Ba'ath party played no role in 9/11 today. Here's a BBC Link to George's earlier statement.

Today however, our great orator had this to say, on a day when two more U.S soldiers were killed in Iraq:

"That's what's happening today: People are willing to sacrifice for the country they love," Bush said at the White House. "They remember the lessons of September 11th, 2001, and so do I."

Okay. As far as I can tell, the biggest lesson that Bush learned from 9/11 is that lying to, well, everyone is now his administration's policy. As for any other lessons that George has learned from 9/11 things get pretty fuzzy.

Link to article

According to Atrios, Mr. Bush then proceeded to play golf.

Will this adminstration ever stop retelling a different tale for politcal gain? (yes, that is irony)

Limbaugh's actions speak louder than his words

After Rush's on air confessional that he is addicted to painkillers due to chronic pain, we have to report the following:

AMERICAN CENTURY CHAMPIONSHIP

July 17, 2003

Pre Round

An interview with:

RUSH LIMBAUGH

Q. How did your game go today?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, this is the third day I've played this week, and it was -- this is nothing to write home about. Last four holes, maybe, I played like I'm capable of. But I was doing things today that I haven't done in two years, topping drives and a number of other things.

But it's good to get a round like this out of the system when it doesn't count. Makes the amateur partners feel really good. So it all turned out for the best.

I mean, my attitude is, I'm just grateful to be here. I'm not a golfer. Thank God I don't make my living at it, and I feel very lucky, very privileged just to be able to participate in something like this.

Q. What was the big bother, was it the number of people watching you?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: You know, I've played the Bob Hope three times and the AT&T twice. It wasn't bad. It's just the game is mental. Once you've mastered the physical aspect, not mastered, but 90 percent of the game, all of the other things being equal is mental, and for some reason, I just was not able to execute my swing today.

And I think it had nothing to do with physical characteristics. There's nothing wrong with me. I think it's just for whatever reason, maybe I was tired, I have no idea what it was. And that's the thing that frustrates me about the game, I'll go play well two rounds, come out and do today and not really know why I did poorly. But that's what makes me an amateur.

Q. You've been invited here in previous years. Why did you take it up this year? I know you've been invited in years past.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, I think -- I didn't know. I have not been invited before that I knew of. This is the first year.

In fact, I tell you, I've watched this tournament. There's two reasons why I like this tournament: One, the field. It's a great bunch of people. And watching this thing on television is something that you want to be part of, no matter whether you have a chance to be a part of it or not. I thought maybe some day I would.

But the other thing about it is this tournament signals the beginning of football season. One, two weeks after this tournament, training camp starts. And I'm a big football fan, so this tournament has always had a couple meanings to be here.

But to be here among the people that are playing in this, as I say, I don't want to overdo it, but it's a treat.

I think, I could be wrong, but this is the first I'm I've been invited, because I would have said yes if I knew.

Q. Could you talk about your new job on ESPN with Sunday NFL Countdown, what's your role on the show going to be?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, there's a defined role, but I think like everything else it's going to evolve as the season unfolds.

The plan now is for me to within the first half hour or 15 minutes of the program open with a 90-second to two-minute essay that hopefully will be produced; have a lot of video and audio elements to it. And then during the course of the show they are going to be -- this is the way ESPN is thinking about it. There will be three or four times where the group onset -- it will be in Bristol. I will be on-set in the same studio, just a different room. And if there's something going on I want to get in on, I'll do the equivalent of a coach, throwing a flag wanting to review a play. I'll say, hey, wait a minute, something was said here that's not right and want to get in on it. That's what I'm going to do.

I think as this evolves, it will be probably more than three times, could be three or four, but it's going to be a chance just for me to talk football, which I also love. The way I've been talking about it is, you sit around, you watch football all day on the couch or you watch these pregame shows and you listen to the stuff being talked about. You say to yourself, "I can do that." So now I've got a chance to do it.

This is just pure fun for me. This is just the pure pursuit of something that I really love, almost as a hobby, and to get a chance to do it is something I'm looking forward to.

Q. Have you talked to Dennis Miller at all about his experience?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: No. In fact, I met Dennis for the first time last night at the Rules Meeting where we were told what-for about everything, what not to say on the golf course, how to dress and this sort of thing.

Kevin Sorbo saw me walk in and his eyes got real big and, "oh," and he turned this way and said, "Dennis." And Dennis came out and we shook hands for about two or three minutes, talked golf, but nothing else.

Q. Do you look at this as an opportunity to disconnect from world events a little bit? Are you on a little bit of a vacation or are you going to try keep up with what's going on?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: My computer is back where I'm staying and when I go back home I'll fire it up. I'm continuing to stay informed while I'm gone because I'll get back an the air on Monday do the program. I don't take a break from that, but the break is not having to come up or not having to be on in a performance sense in that basis.

But this is, I got an e-mail note the other day from somebody who was chiding me for goofing off, and this is not goofing off. There are a lot of people with a lot of expectations. These amateurs you're playing with today, they have a lot of expectations of the person they have drawn. The other people here have expectations. I have expectations of doing well.

So, there's a different kind of pressure that I've put on myself, maybe I'd play better if I just looked at this as sort of care free and happy-go-lucky. But to me this is almost an extension of work in the sense of the opportunity that's presented here.

I mean, all of these people out here that I must have signed, if one, 50 autographs between every hole. Some of the fairways, I'm signing as I walk. Now those people all have expectations, too. I don't say no to one of them or if they want to pose for pictures. It's a chance to cement the relationship with the audience. So I actually look at it as an extension of work.

But I love what I do, so it really isn't work.

Q. Why do you think that talk radio has become such a hot vehicle for conservative politics?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: You mean as opposed to another point of view, or why is just talk radio as a format succeeding?

Q. Format, yes.

RUSH LIMBAUGH: As a format succeeding. Well, I really, it's hard for me. I don't listen to other people who do it, so it's hard for me to speak about them.

When people ask me this, you know, why is talk radio doing so well. I say, well, people want to listen to it and for whatever reason they consider it, a good show. I think there are many elements to my program and talk radio. Radio is a very intimate medium. Television, it is what it is, but people watch television, kind of zombie-like. Television provides you the pictures. All you've got to is sit there and watch and use no imagination whatsoever because that's provided for you.

Radio, a good host has to paint the pictures. A good host has to be compelling. A good host has to glue to you to the radio. I think if that happens, then you've got a very active relationship between the listener and the host.

Walking around with these people, these people are quoting things to me I said three years ago or five years ago. Some guy asked me to do something I did ten years ago as a "best-of" thing.

Television people walking around out here, you will hear, "boy, I love that tie you wore the other day" or your "makeup looks good" or whatever. But radio, they hear what you say. It's a very substantive medium because that's all there are is words, that's nothing else. Much the mainstream press sort of puts talk radio down and looks at it as a stepchild, but the people that listen to it, listen to it actively. They listen to it for a long time. They derive either information or pleasure or information or a combination of all three, and that's what makes the bond of loyalty between host and audiences so deep, it really does.

Q. What did you think about when you heard, it was reported in a new book about golfing and presidents that Bill Clinton would take up to 16 mulligans - ?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Now, is anybody surprised at that? That Bill Clinton would take 16 shots and record a 5, is that what it was? Now that shouldn't surprise -- the thing about golf and I know this is a cliche, and I've only been playing it, what, six years. I started in 1997. The thing about golf, really, is you'll find out, at least I have, what people are all about and made of. You find out whether they quit. You'll find out whether they fudge or cheat. Any number of characteristics that people possess in their personalities will come out usually in 18 holes of golf, whether they have a temper, whether they have a controlled anger or whatever it is about them, you'll learn it.

And so to hear that Clinton -- I mean, when I play, we don't even call them mulligans; we call them Clintons.

Q. What's your shortcoming? Do you have a temper?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, playing. But then after that is aim. Hitting it where I've aimed. It doesn't go there.

Q. Do your shots hook to the right?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: No, no. I draw the ball. My natural ball flight is a draw, but when it goes right, I hear about it. People think I've never heard a joke about my golf going this way, or "television" right. (Indicating left).

I spray it. That's one of the frustrating things. I would trade 20 yards of distance -- how many times have you heard this -- distance, just to hit it straight.

Q. Did you ever want to be an athlete?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Oh, who doesn't? I played little league basketball. You know, on Tuesday afternoon, I played with Mark McGwire. Yesterday I played with Pierre LaRouche, Mario Lemieux and Mark Rypien. I felt like an absolute dork. These guys are hitting the ball 330 yards up here in this air. I'm lucky to hit it 240 and they are kind of snickering behind their backs, while to my face, "Thatta boy, Rush, you can do it."

There are many different levels of this game, and when you play with people who are up here, you realize where you are. And that's why you can't take it too seriously and just realize it's beautiful where you go to play, it's an opportunity to meet new people. In a situation like this, the vistas that you have here, as I say, everybody has to be somewhere, and there's no better place than right here to be this weekend.

Q. Were there any surprises when you came up here for the first time, like certain players or entertainers might expect you to be a certain way, maybe hassle you, but ended up being nice and congenial?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: If I understood the question, I never run into anybody hassling me. Nobody ever gives me -- the last time it happened was the AT&T in January. It was one time out of the four days and I didn't even know it. It was on the 17th hole and I teed off and some guy tried to shout and time it right when I swung. I heard a noise but it wasn't loud enough to distract me and somebody told me later that somebody had shouted something at me.

But I don't -- the people who -- the very few, the very few number of people who have problems with me never show up at these things. There's just nothing but sheer love out there. Total love.

Q. When did you come to the realization that you were going to be a talk show host and not a professional athlete?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, I knew I wasn't going to be a professional athlete when I got cut from the high school baseball team during tryouts.

You see, that's the thing about sports, and this is another thing about golf, too. I made the cut with Tom Pernice at the AT&T this year and played on Sunday. It's the only sport that you can play with the pros on their money day, and I was , get this, I was 1-under grows after six holes. Then I started to think about what I was doing and lost it.

But you can't play middle linebacker on Sunday with an NFL team. You can't play Major League Baseball. You come out here and play with the pros, and you might even hit a shot or two they would take. It's a big thrill. You don't have to be as good as they are to play with them on their field.

And by the way, I haven't met one of those people, the pros are all nice people, and I never met one of them that was a double-digit handicap in their life. I think they are born with certain skills.

No, I knew I wanted to be in radio when I was 12, when I would get ready -- I hated school, got up and the guy on the radio sounded like he was having a lot of fun, and I looked at my day as going to prison; so I wanted to do what he was doing. That's where it started.

Q. Speaking of your background in Kansas City, what do you think of the Royals this year?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Amazed. Aren't the people in Kansas City amazed? They came out of nowhere.

I was with the Royals from 1979 to 1983 and they were expected to win those years, and they did. It was a great team. I was in the marketing department then, and you realize in a market the size of Kansas City just how much the community self-esteem is derived from the play of the Royals and how well they were doing. It was just amazing. Cosell would come in for a Monday night playoff game with the Yankees and start talking about the cattle he could see beyond centerfield. The town would go berserk, letters to the editor, Howard Cosell insulting them as a cow town.

Kansas City is probably feeling pretty good now because they are leading their division. I'm sure it was a surprise, considering their payroll and everything else. So I'm happy for them.

Q. Have you had a chance to take in any of the sites at the lake up here and will you be coming back again?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Oh, yeah. I came up here a lot when I lived in Sacramento. I just never played golf. I'm familiar with the area. It's just -- I think all of California, most of it, some of the most beautiful places on the planet.

And I loved living here when I did. Coming up here was a treat. The great thing about Sacramento was you're two hours from Napa, two from San Francisco, five hours from Yosemite; so you got to see a lot of things. It's a pleasure. Half these people drove up from Sacramento or Stockton, these people following me around the gallery. They had been listening to me since I started in Sacramento in '84. It's always like old home week when I come out here.

Q. Why was Sacramento such a launchpad for your radio career?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Well, the business reason is it's the first time that I worked in a radio station where they were not afraid of what I was saying and actually encouraged it. They said, "We are here to get into controversy. That's what we want." They said, "We will not back you up if you just say things you don't believe. If you're going to say outrageous things just to make people mad that's not we want. If you can back up what you believe, if you've got reasons for it, then we'll back you to the hilt." And they did.

About a month after I was hired, I got a new morning team. A heard a couple guys from the station across town and totally forgot about me and just allowed me to do the things on radio I had always wanted to do, that the program directors had never allowed me to do because they didn't think it would work or that I was too flamboyant, controversial or whatever.

The thing about any performance media is once you get ratings, then you own them. That's what they wanted in the first place and it's very rare to be left alone and not have all of these PD coaching sessions, but that was the difference. As a result of that, I had the success there that I had never had, and that developed almost a community bond in Sacramento. A vagabond, marching in a country, lived in Kansas City for ten years, but never met the friends or had the sense of community I had in just under four years in Sacramento. Nothing against Kansas City by the way, great town.

Sacramento was where it all came together, and that's another reason I'll have a soft sort for them.

Q. Did the Dave Smith Band help you in Sacramento?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: I wouldn't be where I am without the Dave Smith Band, "Undercover of Darkness," never even met the Dave Smith Band, until now. They were all over the place.

I could reminisce about Sacramento for as many years as I've been gone.

Q. With all of the animosity and controversies surrounding liberals, what do you see at the future of American politics?

RUSH LIMBAUGH: Actually, I think liberalism has been on a decline for a long time and it's going to continue. It's evidenced in one way by the fact that most liberals won't even use the word to identify themselves. Most of them try to -- "oh, no, I'm progressive"; "I'm a moderate" -- or I'm something or other.

I think the country is far more conservative. People don't vote their way, who live their lives that way who raise their kids that way. I'm optimistic on the country. There are better days ahead. I think every day is a better day than the day before. There's always going to be this argument, liberal versus conservative. The argument is never going to end.

The argument is we all have wants and needs and how do we best provide them: Individuals working hard seeking their own ambition, utilizing their ambition, seeking their own heights? Or do we say: No, most people are not going to be able to be what they want to be, so instead of some making it and others not others, let's have the government make everybody equally miserable. That's the argument.

I don't want any part of anyone else being responsible for my wants and needs. I want to be totally responsible for both. The day I end up or anybody ends up depending on somebody else for what they need especially is not good for them or the country at large, and that's basically what liberalism promises, and that's why I think it's on it's way out.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it.




Linkage

******************************************************

Courtesy FastScripts. (asapsports.com)

No mention of pain here..hmmm. Rush gives no indication of protracted back pain. Odd to say the least. He admits to playing in at least five tourneys, and no mention of pain? Curious to say the least.

And then there's this:

Rush Limbaugh no slouch with the sticks

by John Albers, Golf Press Association

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. -- Yes, yes, he's heard it before -- the one about how in the world his golf ball can possibly fly to the right?

Staunchly conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh has heard all the golf-and-politics jokes before, but they don't faze him. Put him in the same group with Mark McGwire, Mario Lemieux and Mark Rypien, however, and you might have the ultra-confident, former jock a bit rattled.

I felt like an absolute dork," Limbaugh said after practice rounds on Tuesday and Wednesday with the long hitters. "These guys are hitting the ball 330 yards up here in this air. I'm lucky to hit it 240 and they are kind of snickering behind their backs, while to my face, 'Thatta boy, Rush, you can do it.'"

No slouch with the sticks himself after only playing for the past six years, Limbaugh is visiting Lake Tahoe for the American Century Championship this year for the first time. Limbaugh has played in the PGA Tour's Bob Hope Chrysler Classic three times and the AT&T Pebble Beach Pro-Am twice, making the cut in 2003 and playing on the weekend with PGA Tour professional Tom Pernice. Nevertheless, Limbaugh strikes an unusually humble pose when describing his chances this weekend.

"There are many different levels of this game and when you play with the people who are up here, you realize where you are and you don't take it too seriously," Limbaugh said with a laugh. "As I say, everybody has to be somewhere, and there's no better place to be this weekend than right here."

Limbaugh has been right in the middle of America's consciousness for the better part of two decades with his popular radio talk show devoted to politics and current events. Syndicated nationally on more than 600 stations, Limbaugh often has in excess of 20 million listeners tune in each week. In addition to his radio work -- for which he was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame in 1993 -- Limbaugh has also authored two best-selling books and is preparing to take his opinionated views to ESPN as a contributor for its Sunday NFL Countdown pre-game show.

Don't think for a minute that Limbaugh keeps those opinions restricted to politics, and now football. He can and will wax philosophical on a wide range of subjects, including golf.

"The thing about golf, really," Limbaugh said, "is you'll find out what people are all about. You find out whether they cheat. You find out whether they quit. You'll find out whether they fudge or cheat. Any number of characteristics that people possess in their personalities will come out, usually in 18 holes of golf."

"I mean, when I play we don't even call them 'mulligans,'" he added, "we call them 'Clintons.'"

Yes, he's heard that one before too.

(c) 2003 SirenServ, Inc. All rights reserved.

Linkage

***************************************************************

I think that the least objective reader can see that the above does not square with Limbaugh's confessional of 10/10/2003.
His confession, available here, seems to lean toward iatrogenic addiction. The above articles conceriing his sporting escapades along with the allegations of his former maid, Wilma Cline,(quick search yields many hits) make his story one to be skeptical of at best.


To recap, Rush has been playing golf...continuously as best we can tell, for the last six years without any apparent or expressed pain. On his Radio show he claimed that his addiction was due to abusing prescribed pain medication is true. It is just that this pain medication appears to have been prescribed to someone else.

Stay tuned.