:)



Click Bush to order.

Allow me to add a little color.

THEN:

President Bush, March 19, 2003:

"The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

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

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, March 11, 2003:

"He claims to have no chemical or biological weapons, yet we know he continues to hide biological and chemical weapons, moving them to different locations as often as every 12 to 24 hours and placing them in residential neighborhoods."

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

Vice President Dick Cheney, Aug. 26, 2002:


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies and against us."

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

Cheney, Aug. 29, 2002:

"His regime is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear-weapons program."

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

NOW:

Tenet Today:

"My provisional bottom line today: Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, he still wanted one, and Iraq intended to reconstitute a nuclear program at some point."

Referring to the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, a report by the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies about whether Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them:

"We concluded that in some of these categories Iraq had weapons, and that in others - where it did not have them - it was trying to develop them.

"Let me be clear: Analysts differed on several important aspects of these programs, and those debates were spelled out in the estimate. They never said there was an `imminent' threat. Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policymakers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests. No one told us what to say or how to say it."

Sources: CIA, Federal Document Clearing House

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

I hope you trust my sources ;)

From the ever fruitful Knight Ridder Washington Bureau comes this:

Bush's performance under scrutiny

By RON HUTCHESON
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - President Bush's performance as commander-in-chief was supposed to be his strong suit in the November election, but questions about his leadership suddenly have forced him on the defensive.

With the week only half over, Bush had reversed course on the need for an investigation into prewar intelligence in Iraq, reluctantly agreed to extend an investigation into the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and fended off questions about his military service.

In a clear sign of potential political damage, a new Gallup poll shows that voters trust Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts - the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination - more than Bush to decide when U.S. troops should go to war. And, for the first time since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, fewer than half of Americans - 49 percent - say the war was worth it.

"If that goes below 50 percent and stays there, it's a real significant problem for the Bush administration," said Frank Newport, Gallup's editor in chief. "All the discussion about the rationale (for war) is beginning to have some effect on Americans."

The poll, conducted for CNN and USA Today from Jan. 30 to Feb. 1, also showed the president's overall approval rating at a new low of 49 percent. Any approval rating below 50 percent is considered a clear warning sign for a candidate seeking re-election.

Bush has made his wartime leadership the centerpiece of his re-election campaign, but Kerry's emergence as the Democratic front-runner and continuing problems in Iraq and Afghanistan could complicate the Republican game plan. Democrats already are trying to draw a contrast between Kerry's status as a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush's gap-filled record as a member of the National Guard.

On Wednesday, the president used a routine speech on Winston Churchill to defend his own wartime leadership.

"In some ways, our current struggles or challenges are similar to those Churchill knew," he said at the opening of a Churchill exhibit at the Library of Congress. "We're at a point of testing, when people and nations show what they're made out of. ... We will do what it takes. We will not leave until the job is done."

But Bush has had to surrender ground on issues related to his leadership. Much more at link

The gloves are now officially off. Yesterday, the NYT reported that Ed Gillespie(Chair of the RNC) has been lashing out at Kerry, saying Kerry was "out of sync" with most voters, "culturally out of step with the rest of America," and a man who votes with "the extreme elements of his party."

I know Kerry's voting record pretty well, and it's hardly that of an 'extremist.' WTF does being "culturally out of step with the rest of America" mean? Is it that Kerry doesn't go to NASCAR races, watch BassMasters while beating his dog, and yelling at his wife to bring him another 'cold one?' Is this the message that 'honest Eddie's' pitching to us?

Nonetheless, should Kerry get the nod, we all know who the extremist in the general election is going to be. Lest one his many scandals currently on the stove should go aboil, and result in his hasty departure.

Here is what some of Kerry's guys reportedly said:

"We welcome a debate with the likes of Ed Gillespie, Karl Rove and this White House about who's out of sync with Main Street America." David Wade -- Kerry spokesman

"Their tired old G.O.P. attack dog just won't hunt," Mr. Wade said, adding that Republicans would be running against "a Democrat who fought for his country in war, put criminals behind bars as a prosecutor, stood up for balanced budgets in the Senate," and "kept faith with America's veterans."

Another Kerry adviser was more blunt. "This is not the Dukakis campaign," the adviser said. "We're not going to take it. And if they're going to come at us with stuff, whatever that stuff may be, if it goes to a place where the '88 campaign did, then everything is on the table. Everything."

Everything. I like it.

Bush comparing America today with Great Britain under siege by the third Reich? Talk about dogs that won't hunt. That canine hasn't had a pulse in years. Yes, Bush is certainly Churchillian. There is nothing routine about Bush giving a speech, unless one is referring to his wanton destruction of grammar, diction, and wholesale slaughter of the English language. That's routine.

Canadians to Bush: Hope You Lose, Eh

Take off, hoser. No, but seriously.

According to a new poll, only 15 per cent of us would vote for the President

JONATHON GATEHOUSE

MAYBE IT'S THAT SMUG LITTLE SMILE. His penchant for fantastically expensive military photo-ops. Or the swaggering, belt-hitching walk that cries out for a pair of swinging saloon doors. And though, God knows, we have too many of our own syntactically challenged politicians to be casting stones, shouldn't the leader of the free world know that "misunderestimate" isn't a word?

Yes, we're cavilling, but clearly there is something about George W. Bush that gets under the skin of Canadians. After all, vehemently disagreeing with the policies of American presidents is almost a national pastime. There has to be another explanation for our extreme reaction, the desire afoot in the land to see him turfed from office. That and the unprintable sentiment about him and the horse he rode in on. Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians have made their decision.

Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity. And if Americans remain almost evenly divided -- some 50 per cent approve of his performance in the White House and he's running neck and neck with his likely Democratic challengers -- there is no such dithering on this side of the border. Just 12 per cent of us feel Canada is better off since he took office, and only a third of respondents will admit to liking the world's most powerful man, even just a little bit. There is a vitual tome at link

Again, Canada lights the way.

Plame Update:

Cheney's Staff Focus of Probe

Posted Feb. 5, 2004
By Richard Sale

Published: Tuesday, February 17, 2004
(we bring you the news weeks in advance!)

Federal law-enforcement officials said that they have developed hard evidence of possible criminal misconduct by two employees of Vice President Dick Cheney's office related to the unlawful exposure of a CIA officer's identity last year. The investigation, which is continuing, could lead to indictments, a Justice Department official said.

According to these sources, John Hannah and Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, were the two Cheney employees. "We believe that Hannah was the major player in this," one federal law-enforcement officer said. Calls to the vice president's office were not returned, nor did Hannah and Libby return calls.

The strategy of the FBI is to make clear to Hannah "that he faces a real possibility of doing jail time" as a way to pressure him to name superiors, one federal law-enforcement official said.Much more at link

Until there is confirmation, I'll not make a WAG about who I think is likely to take the fall for this. If indeed indictments are served. I'm glad to hear that this is being taken as seriously as it ought to be. Maybe the Republic will stand after all.

In my local newspaper, the Concord Monitor, the lead article is a pitiful piece about gay marriage. Our one term governor, Craig Benson, who is usually unpredictable, followed the GOP line.

I talked to a dozen or so people about this earlier today. New Hampshire is pretty libertarian in many ways, and all of the people under 50 said it was no big deal. A non-issue. The folks in the over 50 set, were pretty much against gay marriage.

My take on the whole thing is pretty simple. Marriage is a legal institution. Under the law, all of our citzenry is supposed to get equal treatment. To treat gays unequally would seem to be unconstitutional.

I saw in the NYT Online that GW Bush -- a known supporter of rights -- is reportedly backing the drafting of an amendment 'defining' marriage. This is not necessarily a position that Mr. Bush personally holds, but could be one borne out of political necessity. You know, to shore up his conservative base.

I think that this is an absurd decision to make, as the Massachusetts ruling is most decidedly not an act of 'activist judges,' but is based purely on the basis of equal rights. Equal rights for everyone, not just for people with whom you agree.

One shouldn't even be able to contemplate an amendment to the Constitution to discriminate against any group, much less support it overtly.

In his own words:

I showed the people of Texas that I'm a uniter, not a divider. I refuse to play the politics of putting people into groups and pitting one group against another." - GW Bush 6, May 1999

A uniter of convenience from all appearances.

In the very same interview, Mr. Bush was asked about Trent Lott's infamous statement concerning homosexuality. It is:

"It is [a sin]....You should try to show them a way to deal with that problem, just like alcohol...or sex addiction...or kleptomaniacs." - Senate Republican Leader Trent Lott, Associated Press, June 15, 1998.

To which then governor Bush said:

"I was taught that we should look after the beam in our own eye before searching for the mote in someone else's."

Hey! That sounds like a pretty progressive guy.

I'm for equal protection under the law for everyone. American or not. I think that the Constitution shouldn't be a document of convenience. As most of Europe pushes for true equal rights, the U.S. again appears ready to fail its citizenry by failing to act in a progressive manner.

I guess that Bush will try make it unanimous. On issues from affirmative action to waging war, to the environment to tax policy, Bush policies have been failures. Let's hope that he takes the legally responsible stance on the gay union issue. He doesn't even have to alienate his base. All he needs to make clear is that this is an issue of equal rights. Certainly his socially conservative would understand that position. Or, maybe not.

Tenet: Iraq never labeled by CIA as imminent threat

I don't know that we'll ever get to the truth regarding the White House's handling of intelligence information. No one knows at this point.

Kay's statement that 'we were all wrong' regarding Iraq's WMD capability is erroneous. Because of the gravity of the situation, and to clearly illustrate this point, I offer Scott Ritter's analysis:

Not everyone got it wrong on Iraq's weapons

Scott Ritter
February 05, 2004

Former UN inspector

WASHINGTON "We were all wrong," David Kay, the Bush administration's former top weapons sleuth in Iraq, recently told members of Congress after acknowledging that there were probably no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Kay insisted that the blame for the failure to find any such weapons lay with the U.S. intelligence community, which, according to Kay, provided inaccurate assessments.

The Kay remarks appear to be an attempt to spin potentially damaging data to the political advantage of President George W. Bush.

The president's decision to create an "independent commission" to investigate this intelligence failure only reinforces this suspicion, since such a commission would only be given the mandate to examine intelligence data, and not the policies and decision-making processes that made use of that data. More disturbing, the commission's findings would be delayed until late fall, after the November presidential election.

The fact, independent of the findings of any commission, is that not everyone was wrong.

I, for one, was not. I did my level best to demand facts from the Bush administration to back up their allegations regarding Iraq's WMD and, failing that, spoke out and wrote in as many forums as possible in an effort to educate the publics of the United States and the world about the danger of going to war based on a hyped-up threat.

In this I was not alone. Rolf Ekeus, the former head of the UN weapons inspectors in Iraq, has declared that under his direction, Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" as early as 1996. Hans Blix, who headed UN weapons inspections in Iraq in the months before the invasion in March 2003, stated that his inspectors had found no evidence of either WMD or WMD-related programs in Iraq. And officials familiar with Iraq, like Ambassador Joseph Wilson and State Department intelligence analyst Greg Theilmann, both exposed the unsustained nature of the Bush administration's claims regarding Iraq's nuclear capability.

The riddle surrounding Iraq's WMD was solvable without resorting to war. For all the layers of deceit and obfuscation, there existed enough basic elements of truth and substantive fact about the disposition of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programs to permit the Gordian knot to be cleaved by anyone willing to try. Sadly, it seems that there was no predisposition on the part of those assigned the task of solving the riddle to do so.

Bush's decision to limit the scope of any inquiry to intelligence matters, effectively blocking any critique of his administration's use -- or abuse -- of such intelligence, is absurd, especially when one considers that the Bush administra tion was already talking of war with Iraq in 2002, prior to the preparation of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) -- the defining document on a particular area of the world or specified threat -- by the director of Central Intelligence.

According to a Department of Defense after-action report on Iraq titled -- Operation Iraqi Freedom: Strategic Lessons Learned, -- a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times in September 2003, -- President Bush approved the overall war strategy for Iraq in August last year. The specific date cited was Aug. 29, 2002 - eight months before the first bomb was dropped.

The CIA did eventually produce a National Intelligence Estimate for Iraq, but only in October 2002, after Bush had already decided on war. The title of the NIE, "Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction," is reflective of a predisposition that was not supported either by the facts available at the time, or by the passage of time.

Stu Cohen, a 28-year veteran of the CIA, wrote in a statement published on the CIA Web site on Nov. 28, 2003, that the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate "judged with high confidence that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles in excess of the 150-kilometer limit imposed by the UN Security Council. These judgements were essentially the same conclusions reached by the United Nations and a wide array of intelligence services, friendly and unfriendly alike."

Cohen said the October NIE was "policy neutral" -- meaning it did not propose a policy that argued either for or against going to war. He also stated that no one who worked on the NIE had been pressured by the Bush White House.

Cohen is wrong in his assertions. The fact that a major policy decision like war with Iraq was made without the benefit of an NIE is, in and of itself, policy manipulation. I worked with Cohen on numerous occasions during this time, and consider him a reasonable man. So I had to wonder when this intelligence professional, confronted with the totality of the failure of the CIA to accurately assess the WMD threat threat posed by Iraq's WMD, wrote that he was "convinced that no reasonable person could have viewed the totality of the information that the intelligence community had at its disposal -- literally millions of pages -- and reached any conclusions or alternative views that were profoundly different from those that we reached."

I consider myself also to be a reasonable person. Like Cohen and the intelligence professionals who prepared the October 2002 NIE, I was intimately familiar with vast quantities of intelligence data collected from around the world by numerous foreign intelligence services (including the CIA) and on the ground in Iraq by UN weapons inspectors, at least until the time of my resignation from Unscom in August 1998. Based on this experience, I was asked by Arms Control Today, the journal of the Arms Control Association, to write an article on the status of disarmament regarding Iraq's WMD.

The article, "The Case for Iraq's Qualitative Disarmament," was published in June 2000 and received broad coverage. Its conclusions were dismissed by the intelligence communities of the United States and Britain. But my finding -- that "because of the work carried out by Unscom, it can be fairly stated that Iraq was qualitatively disarmed at the time inspectors were withdrawn [in December 1998]" -- was an accurate assessment of the disarming of Iraq's WMD capabilities, much more so than the CIA's October NIE or any corresponding analysis carried out by British intelligence services.

I am not alone in my analysis. Ray McGovern, who heads a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or VIPS, also takes umbrage at Cohen's "no reasonable person" assertion. "Had he taken the trouble to read the op-eds and other issuances of VIPs members over the past two years," McGovern told me, he would have found that "our writings consistently contained conclusions and alternative views that were indeed profoundly different -- even without having had access to what Stu calls the 'totality of the information.' And Stu never indicated he thought us not 'reasonable' -- at least back when many of us worked with him at CIA."

The fact is that McGovern and I, together with scores of intelligence professionals, retired or still in service, who studied Iraq and its WMD capabilities, are reasonable men. We got it right.

The Bush administration, in its rush to war, ignored our advice and the body of factual data we used, and instead relied on rumor, speculation, exaggeration and falsification to mislead the American people and their elected representatives into supporting a war that is rapidly turning into a quagmire. We knew the truth about Iraq's WMD. Sadly, no one listened.

The writer was chief UN inspector in Iraq from 1991 to 1998 and is the author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America." This comment was distributed by Global Viewpoint for Tribune Media Services International.

Link

Theilmann in his own words:

Mr Theilmann told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: "I’m afraid I think the American public was seriously misled."

The US administration "twisted, distorted, simplified" intelligence in a way that led Americans to "seriously misunderstand what the nature of the Iraq threat was", he said.

"I’m not sure I can think of a worse act against the people in a democracy than a President distorting critical information," he said.

"For a President to abuse that sacred trust ... is to me a very serious development."

Mr Theilmann said he was "not as knowledgeable about the British side of the question."

But he said: "I am disappointed by some of the statements made by Prime Minister Blair, even though I understand how difficult it is for a close ally of the United States to confront the United States on the use of intelligence information."

British intelligence was still sticking to claims that Saddam attempted to obtain nuclear material from Niger even though the US now acknowledged that was based on forged documents, Mr Theilmann said.

Mr Blair would not have been working on more evidence than the Bush administration, he told Today.

"It is unlikely that any really important intelligence here would not have been shared," he said.

"We are talking about intelligence of extraordinary importance, intelligence that can make the difference between war and peace.

"I find it very difficult to believe that major intelligence has been withheld from one party to the other."

Ritter's assertions were dismissed and a complete hatchet job was done to him courtesy of CNN, MSNBC and the whole brat pack of Hill 'reporters.' Hans Blix, Mohamed el-Baradei, Ekeus, Wilson, and Theilmann just do not exist.

Of course we know what happened to Wilson. His wife was outed by 'senior administration officials' for his telling the truth about the Niger yellowcake non-event. I wonder how that investigation is going? I'm not holding my breath.

This whole thing stinks. I'm for throwing the whole lot of them out.

Tens Links o' Interest is Back!

SCIENCE!

The first two entries are from New Scientist. I think extrasolar planets are a seriously cool thing. Oxygen seen streaming off exoplanet A bit:

Carbon and oxygen have been observed streaming off an extrasolar planet for the first time by researchers using the Hubble Space Telescope.

The study is likely to add important insight into the nature and evolution of extrasolar planets, which are notoriously difficult to observe. It may also provide a model for understanding our own planet's evolution, as the Earth may have been too puny to hold onto its original atmosphere.

"It's a very intriguing and suggestive observation," says Sara Seager, an astronomer who studies extrasolar planets at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, US. "If confirmed, it will provide a nice constraint to understanding the upper atmosphere of this extrasolar planet."

Much more at link!

I like confirmation that things are made up of the same stuff as the Earth. The next link provides evidence that what you believe to be true may in fact be demonstrably false(Bush Administration members, and WMD believers take note)

Also from New Scientist comes this article about a phenomenon being called 'mindsight.' The obligatory tease:

Some people may be aware that a scene they are looking at has changed without being able to identify what that change is. This could be a newly discovered mode of conscious visual perception, according to the psychologist who discovered it. He has dubbed the phenomenon "mindsight".

Ronald Rensink, based at the University of British Columbia in Canada, showed 40 people a series of photographic images flickering on a computer screen. Each image was shown for around a quarter of a second and followed by a brief blank grey screen. Sometimes the image would remain the same throughout the trial; in other trials, after a time the initial image would be alternated with a subtly different one.

In trials where the researchers manipulated the image, around a third of the people tested reported feeling that the image had changed before they could identify what the change was. In control trials, the same people were confident that no change had occurred. The response to a change in image and control trials was reliably different.

Our visual system can produce a strong gut feeling that something has changed, Rensink says, even if we cannot visualise that change in our minds and cannot say what was altered or where the alteration occurred.

"I think this effect explains a lot of the belief in a sixth sense." He has no idea what physical processes generate mindsight, but says it may be possible to confirm it exists using brain scanners.

I think it is fabulous that science has given us the tools to de-mystify life. Then again, I harbor no superstitions nor subscribe to any myths. There is wonder and beauty in the quest for true knowledge. One door closes and another opens.

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

WEB LITERATURE!

Ya know, in the less traveled parts of the web, there are some real gems. I don't mention these nearly often enough. For instance, Editor & Publisher always has great content.

In more or less the same vein, Harper's Magazine online is great resource for well researched material. Rick Mac Arthur and staff do a great job. Of course I could help them with their site layout ;) Why even Harper's has a blog.

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

BLOGS!

As much as I read during the course of a day, I really don't get a chance to check out a great many blogs. My favorite non-corporate blogs are, in no particular order:

Jesse Taylor's Pandagon. Witty, and incisive. But mostly witty. He's a grand sense of humor.

Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo. Probably the finest, most consistent political writing of all the 'A-List' bloggers.

David Neiwert's Orcinus. Dave could use some help on his layout, but his content is most excellent.

There are only two corporate blogs that I ever read.

Eric Alterman's Altercation Hosted by evil giants Microsoft AND NBGE. He usually puts out wat too much content for me to read, but if I keep up day after day, it isn't bad.

Joe Conason's oddly titled Joe Conason's Journal. Another insightful, thoughtful, and consistently good bit of work. -- This one isn't updated daily, so it's easy to keep track of.

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

Globalisation!

I was trying to pry open a javascript pop-up window at Lou Dobbs Tonight entitled 'exporting America.' Well, that didn't work out, so I did a quick Google using the above in full quotation marks. I didn't get the list of companies I was looking for, but I did find Lou Dobbs Moneyline transcript. A pretty good summation of how globalisation is effecting the U.S. middle-class.

You can also check out the World Bank's Globalisation pages.

That's all I'm going to dedicate to that topic.

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

BUSH'S BOGUS BUDGET

Biomed Central is reporting that Bush's budget proposes a 2.6% funding increase for the NSF(National Science Foundation), but an 8.9% funding cut for the CDC(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention).

Select quote:

The president's budget "threatens our progress in medicine and our position as world leader in the scientific research enterprise," said Robert D. Wells, president of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), in a statement.

Nils Hasselmo, president of the Association of American Universities, said the administration's budget "significantly underfunds" the nation's investment in scientific research. “The nation must pull itself out of our deficit spiral,” he said in a statement, "but we cannot do so by shortchanging research."

We are so going to lose our technological edge to Asia early in this century.

One more budget item. Okay, it's a few items.

OVERVIEW: The budget features big increases for military and homeland security but cuts or holds down the growth in spending for most other programs. President Bush projected the deficit to be $521 billion in the 2004 fiscal year and $364 billion in the 2005 fiscal year. The 2005 deficit figure does not count the cost of the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.

TAXES: About $1.1 trillion in additional tax cuts over 10 years, most taking effect after President Bush leaves office. About $175 billion in cuts would take place by 2009; the rest, about $900 billion, would come at the end of the decade.

DEFICITS: A deficit of $521 billion this year, declining to $237 billion by 2009. The budget makes no projections on the size of later deficits.

DOMESTIC SPENDING: Aside from relying on economic growth, the administration’s major proposal to reduce the deficit is holding spending increases on nonmilitary discretionary programs, like parks and health agencies, to less than 1 percent.

MILITARY: Increases spending to $401.7 billion, a jump of 7.1 percent. The increase does not include costs for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money, which the White House says may be up to $50 billion, will be sought after the November election.

Well, I'd say that's fiscally responsible. How the f$%# does the military warrant $1.1B I L L I O N per DAY? And that's not accounting for Iraq and Afghanistan. Down the road this tax cut..which of course can never be made truly permanent..is going to burden future generations when a majority of Americans don't even want the stupid thing.

Oh screw it, here's the rest:

ENERGY: The president proposes $24.3 billion in spending for the Energy Department. But the administration significantly scaled back energy tax breaks to $7.2 billion over 10 years compared with about $25 billion sought by Congress last year.

JUSTICE: The Justice Department's $18.7 billion includes $2.6 billion for counterterrorism, an increase of 19 percent from last year. The F.B.I. is the main beneficiary, with a proposed budget of $5.1 billion dedicated to expanding counterterrorism investigations, improving intelligence analysis and other areas.

EDUCATION: President Bush is proposing significant spending increases in two major areas. The budget would increase aid to poor districts by $1 billion, to $13.3 billion, which would go to schools that are the main beneficiaries of his No Child Left Behind program.

DOMESTIC SECURITY: The proposed budget would increase spending for the Department of Homeland Security to $40.2 billion, a 10 percent increase above last year's $36.5 billion. It calls for $890 million to enhance aviation and transportation security and $411 million to strengthen border and port security.

HEALTH CARE: The Bush administration is once again proposing new tax credits to help the uninsured buy health coverage, with a $70 billion plan over 10 years. It also plans a significant increase to the Food and Drug Administration to secure food safety.

NASA: A 5.6 percent increase is proposed in NASA's budget, to $16.2 billion, a step in pursuing the president's vision for refocusing space exploration. Courtesy the NYT

I remember small government conservatives. Although their social policies were a century or so out of touch, I agreed with their at least paying lip service to 'small government.' Why is the defense industry such a hard to kill sacred cow in America? Who exactly do we have to fear? Ourselves, that's who. But that misses the point. *heavy sigh*

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

Well, folks. That's a wrap. I think I have ten or so there. I really didn't bother counting. ;)

Bliar:

Tony Blair admitted yesterday that he led the crucial parliamentary debate which approved the war in Iraq without knowing the full truth behind the Government's claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes.

He was pressed in the Commons to spell out when he knew that the claim Iraq could launch a deadly attack with weapons of mass destruction within that period related only to battlefield weapons, rather than long-range missiles. Mr Blair said: "I've already indicated exactly when this came to my attention; it wasn't before the debate on 18 March.

"When you say that a battlefield weapon would not be a weapon of mass destruction, if there were chemical or biological or nuclear battlefield weapons that most certainly would be held as a weapon of mass destruction and the idea that their use wouldn't threaten regional stability I find somewhat eccentric." The Independent has the full details.

One can only hope that our representatives here in the states are as forthcoming. This is not much of an admission, but hey, it's a start.

Anyone that visits this blog should probably be reading CAP's Progress Report and Talking Points. Both are linked to in the left(ha ha) hand menu on the homepage. I'd put up links, but they use the Microsoft proprietary ASP! Active Server Pages(.asp) should be banished from the web.

There, I feel better now. I hope you do as well. :)

You know what's a helluva lot more dangerous than Ricin?

Being between Bill Frist and a camera.

Talk about a publicity whore. Sheesh.

He is one strange serial cat killer.

There are a couple interesting items on this CBS Marketwatch page. Check out the small Flash presidential comparison interactive tool, and note the differences in health care coverage. It has been a crummy day for equities.

The LA Times appears to paint a picture of Iraq a bit different than that our president delivered in his SOTU address v2004.

Iraq remains a brutal violent place, where under the auspices of the Iraq Governing Council(IGC) , Sharia Law has been accepted. I made note of this in my refutations of Bush's claims in his SOTU address here. (caution, my response to the SOTU is longer than the SOTU address itself)

I'll let the Times take it from here:

Iraqi Insurgency Is as Lethal as Ever Since Hussein's Capture

By Patrick J. McDonnell
Times Staff Writer

February 4, 2004

FALLOUJA, Iraq — Nearly two months after the capture of Saddam Hussein, the casualty rate among U.S. soldiers and Iraqis in insurgent attacks has accelerated, and much of this nation's Sunni Muslim heartland remains a perilous zone of conflict — with bouts of violence also striking the Kurdish north and the Shiite south.

The most recent spate of bloodshed includes bombings last weekend in the northern cities of Irbil and Mosul as well as last month's suicide attack outside the main U.S. compound in Baghdad, blasts that claimed well over 100 lives.

Iraqi security forces, civilians and others deemed collaborators are now the major targets, and although attacks on U.S. troops have diminished in number, they remain lethal: 45 soldiers were killed in January, according to unofficial tallies, compared with 40 in December.

As U.S. forces prepared to head home in a massive rotation that would leave troops vulnerable to attack, front-line commanders interviewed in recent weeks expressed confidence that a measure of order had been restored after Hussein's capture. But they cautioned that the attacks might continue and possibly intensify as the U.S. occupation enters its second year this spring with fresh units of soldiers and Marines.

"I won't defeat all the enemy in my time. That's very clear," Lt. Col. Brian Drinkwine said in this hostile city west of Baghdad, where U.S. troops typically would draw fire within an hour if they remained stationary. "I don't have the threat of a tank battalion rising out of the dust and coming after me. But I've got mortars, I've got rockets, and I've got small elements that are trying to chip away at our will."

The insurgents' goal, apart from breaking the will of American forces, remains the same as before Hussein was tracked down: to sow insecurity among Iraqis and disrupt the transition to Iraqi sovereignty scheduled for this summer.

As outgoing commanders reflect on their tumultuous months here, some wonder aloud what constitutes victory in a low-intensity conflict that seems destined to drag on.

"If the standard is, we reduce all incidents to zero, that would be a standard that no city in the world could be measured by," said Lt. Col. Steven Russell of the Army's 4th Infantry Division in Tikrit, Hussein's former home base. "You will always have the hotheads out there, and those who will look for any reason, angle or cause to resist. But that does not characterize the majority of the population."

U.S. forces say they have struck a serious blow to the insurgent command structure, hunting down anti-coalition cells from the capital to the Syrian border.

Last month, Maj. Gen. Ray Odierno, who commands the 4th Infantry Division, told Pentagon reporters in a satellite hookup from Tikrit that loyalists of the former regime "have been brought to their knees." The capture of Hussein on Dec. 13, the general said, "was a major operational and psychological defeat for the enemy."

The arrest of Hussein and seizure of documents in his hide-out led to intelligence gains and probably disrupted funding sources, officials said. But various commanders in the field agreed that they hadn't noted a lasting insurgent retreat since Hussein emerged from his underground chamber south of Tikrit. "Anyone who wanted Saddam back as president emeritus now knows that won't happen," said Col. Joe Anderson, with the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, a onetime stronghold of Hussein's Baath Party. "But up here, I would say there has been no noticeable difference in any way, shape or form since the time he was captured."

The strategic northern city appeared under siege in November, as insurgents successfully targeted U.S. troops and ground fire brought down two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters, killing 17 soldiers. But a fierce U.S. counteroffensive resulted in the arrest of hundreds of suspected insurgents and restored relative calm by mid-December — although a bombing outside a police station Saturday killed nine people and wounded dozens more.

"There's still enough bad guys out there. This will not stop tomorrow," said Anderson, whose unit has already ceded principal duties in Mosul to an Army brigade from Ft. Lewis, Wash., using the new Stryker armored infantry carrier, which has wheels and is considered more mobile than traditional tracked vehicles. "The enemy has definitely been disrupted. They're definitely much worse off, in all categories. But they're not gone."

In Baghdad, commanders say intelligence arising from Hussein's arrest has helped them infiltrate the insurgent cell structure and its financial backbone. U.S. authorities have identified 14 distinct insurgent cells in Baghdad, with up to 300 operatives, although attacks are sometimes farmed out to paid "trigger-pullers." A loose network of former high-ranking military officers and Baath Party functionaries appears to provide financial support and some guidance.

Eight of the Baghdad cells have been disrupted so far, Maj. Gen. Martin Dempsey, commander of the 1st Armored Division, told reporters in Baghdad on Monday. But Dempsey acknowledged that some might "regenerate."

Moreover, the insurgency's decentralized organizational scheme remains shadowy. U.S. officials don't seem to know for certain if there are links among the suicide attackers of Irbil, the ambush squads of Fallouja, the mortar men of Tikrit and the bomb makers of Baghdad. Loyalists of the former regime still represent by far the primary threat, officials say, although the presence of foreign fighters and Islamic militants — believed to make up the bulk of suicide bombers — may be on the rise.

U.S. officials have not budged from their estimate that about 5,000 insurgents are arrayed against the American-led coalition nationwide. But almost twice that many people have been detained for alleged anti-coalition activity.

In the meantime, threats shadow U.S. helicopters in the air and armed convoys on the ground — military traffic that is swelling as tens of thousands of troops enter and exit Iraq in an intensely choreographed switch-over of forces scheduled to last through the spring, the largest such move since World War II. It is a period of high vulnerability, especially along the roads, authorities agree.

The military has enhanced its ability to detect and avoid roadside bombs, dispatching crews to sweep suspect routes and focusing forces on capturing and killing bomb makers — including the "rocket man," a former Iraqi air force colonel and scientist implicated in bomb manufacturing who was arrested in Fallouja. But insurgents have made the devices more deadly, packing artillery shells, other explosives and metal shrapnel into the charges placed along the highways and back roads of Iraq.

"As we make progress, the enemy makes progress," said Gen. Larry R. Ellis, head of U.S. Army Forces Command, who was visiting troops in Mosul last week. "What we've got to do is outthink the enemy and move faster than the enemy."

Throughout Iraq, U.S. authorities are gradually ceding security duties to the expanding legions of Iraqi police and civil defense units, who must deal with the constant threat of retaliation — and are much more exposed than their coalition allies. More than 300 Iraqi police and security personnel — including at least six police chiefs — have been killed since May.

U.S. commanders publicly laud the bravery of their Iraqi counterparts. But relations between police and the U.S. military have often been strained. All agree that Iraqi authorities are not ready to rein in the violence without U.S. help anytime soon.

Here in Fallouja, things started out badly in September when arriving soldiers of the 82nd Airborne Division shot and killed eight police officers in an apparent case of mistaken identity. For strategic purposes, U.S. commanders have broken Fallouja, a city of 250,000, into districts named after sites in the New York City area. A major bridge over the Euphrates is known as the George Washington. The roughest zone, along the Euphrates at the city's western edge, is code-named the Bronx, say officers of the 1st Battalion of the 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, which patrols the town.

"You get down to some parts of the Bronx and it's tough," said Drinkwine, a former hockey player at West Point who commands the 1st Battalion. "Sometimes you feel like you're wearing a Boston Red Sox hat."

Attacks against U.S. forces in the Fallouja area dropped sharply for about a week after Hussein's capture, said Col. Jefforey Smith, commander of the 3rd Brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division, which occupies the zone. But the attacks edged back up.

Military authorities are hopeful that in the coming months, a new influx of U.S. aid will help foster goodwill among U.S. forces, police and hostile populations. Young men in places such as Fallouja often turn to the insurgency not for ideological reasons, officials say, but because firing off an AK-47 or rocket-propelled grenade at a passing convoy is one of the few reliable sources of income.

But commanders acknowledge that there is no immediate solution to the instability in this fractious land where resentment of America runs high and insurgent forces seem determined to keep on exacting casualties, military and civilian.

"Even if we hand out lollipops to these people, that's not to say they're going to love us," Lt. Col. Russell said in Tikrit. "They will always have a bit of reservation, which is understandable, and we will always provide assistance to them, as they need it, but will be on guard for those who would cause problems." Original link

I've said it before, and I'll type it again. The iraqis are acting no differently than we would if the tables were turned. If you can imagine an invading army getting rid of a loathed government, and subsequently occupying the U.S. one can only hope that we would rise up in opposition. This may not be a pretty thing to imagine, but it is the most likely scenario taking place in Iraq. Ordinary Iraqis opposed Saddam's rule, but were powerless to do anything about it. Now they are occupied by another force, and are acting like any individual with a spine would.

The storied lives of Dick and Antonin

Justice compromised

By Steven Lubet

(originally published February 2, 2004 I have been granted permission to repost the piece here YAY! )

YOU HAVE to give Vice President Dick Cheney credit. He goes hunting where the ducks are.
More precisely, he spent several days in early January on a duck hunting trip alongside Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and seven others, at a private camp in southern Louisiana. Such camaraderie between a politician and a Supreme Court justice might not always raise eyebrows, but the timing of this excursion made it particularly controversial. Just three weeks earlier, the Supreme Court, with Justice Scalia's participation, had agreed to hear Mr. Cheney's appeal in a major lawsuit.

Here are the facts:

Shortly after his inauguration, President Bush named Mr. Cheney to head the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), a task force charged with devising a national energy policy. Mr. Cheney's group worked in secret, without releasing interim reports or revealing the names of participants at its meetings. That would be legal only if all of the participants were government employees. But it was widely suspected that some of the meetings included energy company lobbyists and executives, including Enron's Kenneth L. Lay.

Two public interest groups - the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch - sued for access to Mr. Cheney's records. On July 8, 2003, a lower court ruled against the vice president, requiring him to disclose certain documents. Noting that he could face a contempt of court citation if he failed to comply, Mr. Cheney's lawyers asked the Supreme Court to accept the case for review.

At some point in the midst of this, Mr. Cheney and Justice Scalia planned their travels. On Dec. 15, the Supreme Court accepted the case and scheduled it for hearing. On Jan. 5, the hunters arrived in Louisiana as guests of Wallace Carline, the owner of an oil services company.

At the very least, then, Justice Scalia proceeded with his vacation arrangements during the time when the Supreme Court was deciding whether to accept Mr. Cheney's appeal. And so far, it appears that Justice Scalia intends to continue participating in the court's consideration of the case, although a federal statute requires him to step aside in any proceeding where his "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."

Justice Scalia has dismissed any concerns about possible impropriety. Questioned by the Los Angeles Times, he provided a written response that defended his actions:

"Social contacts with high-level executive officials (including Cabinet members) have never been thought improper for judges who may have before them cases in which those people are involved in their official capacity, as opposed to their personal capacity. For example, Supreme Court justices are regularly invited to dine at the White House, whether or not a suit seeking to compel or prevent certain presidential action is pending."

But the case against Mr. Cheney was not an ordinary lawsuit in his official capacity. The plaintiffs in the litigation challenged Mr. Cheney's conduct of the task force, accusing him of allowing energy industry lobbyists to operate "as if they were members of the NEPDG" while wrongly withholding information about the "identity of the participants in the process." It is not merely a case about, say, the interpretation of a statute or the allocation of funds. It is a case about the candor and forthrightness of the vice president, who also happens to be Justice Scalia's hunting partner.

For better or worse, many Americans believe that the U.S. Supreme Court decided the 2000 presidential election, putting Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in office by a 5-4 vote. Some have questioned whether the majority and dissenting opinions were driven more by political affinity than constitutional law.

It is therefore more important than ever for the justices to be scrupulously neutral in political matters, both in fact and appearance. No one would question attendance at a White House dinner, but Justice Scalia's vacation raises far more serious issues, especially if he insists on sitting in Mr. Cheney's case (which, ironically, is all about cronyism).

Great Supreme Court justices have demonstrated independence by distancing themselves from their own political parties. Justices Felix Frankfurter and Byron R. White regularly disappointed the Democrats, just as Chief Justice Earl Warren and Justice William J. Brennan frequently perplexed the Republicans.

In contrast, Justice Scalia has displayed an unfortunate, and ill-timed, chumminess with the vice president. Worse, he has flaunted it by brushing off legitimate questions about his impartiality. While unwilling to acknowledge that the joint vacation compromised his apparent neutrality, he did take care to reassure the Los Angeles Times about another aspect of the junket. The ducks, wrote Justice Scalia, "tasted swell."

Steven Lubet is a professor of law at Northwestern University in Chicago and co-author of Judicial Conduct and Ethics.

Original link

Cheney ans Scalia. Now that's scary. There are times when it is obvious that our Republic is in jeopardy. The above article illustrates one an instance of where politization trumps fairness. Keep an eye on this one.

Another odd American tradition. Red staters vote against their best interests.

Study Finds Families in Rural South Earn Lower Incomes

By MARY DALRYMPLE

Families in the rural South are more likely to earn low incomes than families in any other part of the nation, according to a study released Tuesday by the Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.

In rural communities stretching from Maryland to Texas, 30 percent or more of all families claimed the earned income tax credit, which is designed to lift working poor families out of poverty by refunding some federal payroll taxes. The study charted earned income tax credits claimed on 2001 tax returns.

The researchers concluded that the evidence should prompt politicians and policy-makers to reevaluate their assumptions that the working poor are confined to distressed inner-city neighborhoods.

"I think we're trying to offer a reality check about where the working poor live," said Alan Berube, senior researcher at the Brookings Institution. "If you're under the impression that they live in somebody else's community, you're probably wrong."

The Internal Revenue Service runs a nationwide campaign to publicize the credit and educate families who might qualify. It has neighborhood offices in some places and partners with community organizations in other areas, particularly rural regions.

In the nation as a whole, a higher percentage of families living in urban areas claimed the earned income tax credit, but they were followed very closely by families in rural areas. "The most remote rural areas closely resemble large cities in their incidence of working poverty," the study concluded. Much more at link.

I guess that voting may come down to "god, guns and gays" after all. The Red staters certainly don't vote for their best financial interests. Another thing. The Blue states are net losers of capital to the federal government while Red states are net gainers. Of course this varies from state to state, but taken as whole, the statement holds water.

I linked to this article earlier. I just reread it. There is some serious stuff in here.

....The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, didn’t dispute that the CIA failed to accurately assess the state of Iraq’s weapons programs. But they said that the intelligence efforts led by Cheney magnified the errors through exaggeration, oversights and mistaken deductions.

Those efforts bypassed normal channels, used Iraqi exiles and defectors of questionable reliability, and produced findings on former dictator Saddam Hussein's links to al Qaida and his illicit arms programs that were disputed by analysts at the CIA, the State Department and other agencies, the officials said. “There were more agencies than CIA providing intelligence . . . that are worth scrutiny, including the (Pentagon’s now-disbanded) Office of Special Plans and the office of the vice president,” said a former senior military official who was involved in planning the Iraq invasion.

Some of the disputed findings were presented as facts to Americans as Bush drummed up his case for war.

Those findings included charges of cooperation between Saddam and al Qaida, Cheney’s assertion that Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear weapons program and would “soon” have a nuclear bomb, and Bush’s contention in his 2003 State of the Union address that Saddam was seeking nuclear bomb-making material from Africa. Senior officials on Monday revealed new details of how Cheney’s office pressed Secretary of State Colin Powell to use large amounts of disputed intelligence in a February 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council laying out the U.S. case for an invasion.

A senior administration official said that during a three-day pre-speech review, Powell rejected more than half of a 45-page assessment on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction compiled by Cheney’s chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby, and based on materials assembled by pro-invasion hard-liners in the Pentagon and the White House.

Oh, there is more.

Bush and GOP leaders in Congress had resisted a demand by Democrats for an independent review of the Iraq intelligence, but calls by Kay and key Republicans last week for such an inquiry forced the president to reconsider. “I want to know all the facts,” Bush told reporters after a Cabinet meeting.

He insisted, however, that the war and occupation _ in which more than 500 U.S. troops have died _ were justified because Saddam had failed to halt all illicit weapons activities in violation of numerous U.N. resolutions.

"Saddam Hussein had the intent and capabilities to cause great harm," Bush asserted.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the membership and duration of the independent commission weren’t settled. He skirted the question of whether the panel would examine whether Bush and his top aides exaggerated or misrepresented intelligence on Iraq.

"I’m not going to get into the scope issues at this point," he said. Top Democratic lawmakers said Bush should allow Congress to appoint the commission and determine the scope and duration of its inquiry.

"One of the major questions that needs to be addressed is whether senior administration officials . . . misled the Congress and the public about the nature of the threat from Iraq. Even some of your own statements and those of Vice President Cheney need independent scrutiny. A commission appointed and controlled by the White House will not have the independence or credibility necessary to investigate these issues," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., and four other senior Democrats wrote in a letter to Bush.

The former and current officials said that an objective inquiry would require the panel to look at the roles that Cheney, his office and his neoconservative allies at the Pentagon played in collecting and analyzing intelligence on Iraq.

Reviewing what the CIA did "is half the picture," said Melvin Goodman, a former senior CIA analyst who teaches at the National Defense University. "What you want is an open-ended, blue-ribbon inquiry of the whole picture, which is what (intelligence) the White House got and how the White House used what it got."

Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld have long expressed serious doubts about the CIA’s abilities.

Cheney, according to a senior U.S. official, began visiting the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency during his first days in office for briefings on Iraq and other pressing national security issues.

His staff collected intelligence on Iraq from sources such as newspapers, as well as from regular intelligence channels and from internal Pentagon initiatives directed by Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith.

Those efforts, according to the current and former U.S. officials, combined raw intelligence from the CIA and DIA with information from defectors and Iraqi exiles such as Ahmad Chalabi, now a member of the U.S.-installed Iraqi Governing Council.

The CIA and State Department saw Chalabi, who is close to neoconservatives inside and outside the administration, as an unreliable source of information with a self-interest in pressing the case for Saddam’s ouster.

The senior administration official said the assessments on illicit weapons, al Qaida and human rights in Iraq that Libby pressed on Powell were products of Cheney’s office and Feith’s efforts.

The bulk of the work on illicit weapons and al Qaida links was rejected after representatives from Cheney’s office failed in a 10-hour meeting to show that the materials were from reliable sources, he said.

He said that materials rejected as dubious or false included: - Sept. 11 terrorist Mohamed Atta met an Iraqi intelligence agent in Prague, the Czech Republic, five months before the attacks;

- Iraqi efforts to purchase software from an Australian company to use for mapping the East Coast of the United States;

- Satellite pictures that Libby insisted showed Iraq possessed robot aircraft capable of spraying lethal chemicals;

- A chronology of contacts "going back years" between Iraqi officials and al Qaida. "These pages put the two in contact, but they didn’t prove a damn thing," said the senior official, who added that follow-up reports showed that "in meeting after meeting Iraq rebuffed al Qaida, that Saddam had serious differences reconciling fundamentalist Islam with secular Iraq."

Still, Powell included in his U.N. speech charges that Iraq had provided chemical and biological warfare training to several al Qaida members and that he had helped an al Qaida-linked group produce crude poisons. More at link.

It's really way too early to make any WAGS about what is going to happen here, but a possibility is that Cheney is going to take a dive for the White House before November. I don't know if Cheney can put the GOP above his own personal interest..or is there any difference? Time will tell. Or not.

It's mind numbing, the magnitude of the issues that confront this administration. People trust these guys? Yikes!

Since it appears likely that the Bush Administration is going to be involved in the conduct of some form of Intelligence investigation, it might be a good time to look at the actual words that GW Bush used to get much of the country behind the war. This is a matter of public record.

GW Bush in his own words of Tuesday, October 8, 2002 -- Even given this level of nonsense he would go on to make thse very same claims as well as others in his SOTU address of 2003.

Thank you for that very gracious and warm Cincinnati welcome. I'm honored to be here tonight. I appreciate you all coming.

Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace and America's determination to lead the world in confronting that threat.

The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions, its history of aggression and its drive toward an arsenal of terror.

Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons and to stop all support for terrorist groups.

The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism and practices terror against its own people.

The entire world has witnessed Iraq's 11-year history of defiance, deception, and bad faith.

We also must never forget the most vivid events of recent history. On September 11, 2001, America felt its vulnerability -- even to threats that gather on the other side of the earth. We resolved then, and we are resolved today, to confront every threat, from any source, that could bring sudden terror and suffering to America.

Members of the Congress of both political parties, and members of the United Nations Security Council, agree that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must disarm. We agree that the Iraqi dictator must not be permitted to threaten America and the world with horrible poisons, and diseases, and gases, and atomic weapons.

Since we all agree on this goal, the issue is: How can we best achieve it?

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: About the nature of the threat. About the urgency of action -- and why be concerned now? About the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror.

These are all issues we have discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place.

Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant, who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility towards the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique.

As a former chief weapons inspector for the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime itself: Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?

In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for, and is capable of killing millions.

We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, and VX nerve gas. Saddam Hussein also has experience in using chemical weapons. He has ordered chemical attacks on Iran, and on more than forty villages in his own country. These actions killed or injured at least 20,000 people, more than six times the number of people who died in the attacks of September 11.

And surveillance photos reveal that the regime is rebuilding facilities that it has used to produce chemical and biological weapons.

Every chemical and biological weapon that Iraq has or makes is a direct violation of the truce that ended the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

Yet Saddam Hussein has chosen to build and keep these weapons, despite international sanctions, U.N. demands, and isolation from the civilized world. Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles -- far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey, and other nations -- in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work.

We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

And, of course, sophisticated delivery systems are not required for a chemical or biological attack -- all that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it.

And that is the source of our urgent concern about Saddam Hussein's links to international terrorist groups.

Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than ninety terrorist attacks in twenty countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.

Iraq has also provided safe haven to Abu Abbas, who was responsible for seizing the Achille Lauro and killing an American passenger. And we know that Iraq is continuing to finance terror, and gives assistance to groups that use terrorism to undermine Middle East peace.

We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq.

These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb making, poisons, and deadly gases.

And we know that after September 11, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.

Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints.

Some have argued that confronting the threat from Iraq could detract from the war against terror. To the contrary, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

When I spoke to the Congress more than a year ago, I said that those who harbor terrorists are as guilty as the terrorists themselves. Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network.

Terror cells, and outlaw regimes building weapons of mass destruction, are different faces of the same evil. Our security requires that we confront both. And the United States military is capable of confronting both.

Many people have asked how close Saddam Hussein is to developing a nuclear weapon. We don't know exactly, and that is the problem. Before the Gulf War, the best intelligence indicated that Iraq was eight to 10 years away from developing a nuclear weapon; after the war, international inspectors learned that the regime had been much closer. The regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

The inspectors discovered that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a workable nuclear weapon, and was pursuing several different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium-enrichment sites.

That same year, information from a high-ranking Iraqi nuclear engineer who had defected, revealed that despite his public promises, Saddam Hussein had ordered his nuclear program to continue. The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his "nuclear mujahedeen" -- his nuclear holy warriors.

Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past.

Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.

If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly-enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year.

And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Some citizens wonder: After 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now?

There is a reason. We have experienced the horror of September 11. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing -- in fact they would be eager -- to use a biological, or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

As President Kennedy said in October of 1962: "Neither the United States of America nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception and offensive threats on the part of any nation, large or small. We no longer live in a world," he said, "where only the actual firing of weapons represents a sufficient challenge to a nation's security to constitute maximum peril."

Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring.

Some believe we can address this danger by simply resuming the old approach to inspections, and applying diplomatic and economic pressure. Yet this is precisely what the world has tried to do since 1991.

The U.N. inspections program was met with systematic deception. The Iraqi regime bugged hotel rooms and offices of inspectors to find where they were going next. They forged documents, destroyed evidence, and developed mobile weapons facilities to keep a step ahead of inspectors.

Eight so-called presidential palaces were declared off-limits to unfettered inspections. These sites actually encompass 12 square miles, with hundreds of structures, both above and below the ground, where sensitive materials could be hidden.

The world has also tried economic sanctions and watched Iraq use billions of dollars in illegal oil revenues to fund more weapons purchases, rather than providing for the needs of the Iraqi people.

The world has tried limited military strikes to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities ... only to see them openly rebuilt, while the regime again denies they even exist.

The world has tried no-fly zones to keep Saddam from terrorizing his own people ... and in the last year alone, the Iraqi military has fired upon American and British pilots more than 750 times.

After 11 years during which we have tried containment, sanctions, inspections, even selected military action, the end result is that Saddam Hussein still has chemical and biological weapons, and is increasing his capabilities to make more. And he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.

Clearly, to actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps to keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.

Among those requirements, the Iraqi regime must reveal and destroy, under U.N. supervision, all existing weapons of mass destruction. To ensure that we learn the truth, the regime must allow witnesses to its illegal activities to be interviewed outside of the country.

And these witnesses must be free to bring their families with them, so they are all beyond the reach of Saddam Hussein's terror and murder.

And inspectors must have access to any site, at any time, without pre-clearance, without delay, without exceptions.

The time for denying, deceiving, and delaying has come to an end. Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him.

Many nations are joining us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. They are committed to defending the international security that protects the lives of both our citizens and theirs.

And that is why America is challenging all nations to take the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council seriously. Those resolutions are very clear. In addition to declaring and destroying all of its weapons of mass destruction, Iraq must end its support for terrorism. It must cease the persecution of its civilian population. It must stop all illicit trade outside the oil-for-food program. And it must release or account for all Gulf War personnel, including an American pilot, whose fate is still unknown.

By taking these steps, and only by taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict. These steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice.

Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it. This is why two administrations -- mine and President Clinton's -- have stated that regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation.

I hope this will not require military action, but it may. And military conflict could be difficult. An Iraqi regime faced with its own demise may attempt cruel and desperate measures. If Saddam Hussein orders such measures, his generals would be well advised to refuse those orders. If they do not refuse, they must understand that all war criminals will be pursued and punished.

If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully, we will act with the full power of the United States military, we will act with allies at our side, and we will prevail.

There is no easy or risk-free course of action. Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all evidence.

As Americans, we want peace -- we work and sacrifice for peace -- and there can be no peace if our security depends on the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I am not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam Hussein.

Failure to act would embolden other tyrants; allow terrorists access to new weapons and new resources; and make blackmail a permanent feature of world events.

The United Nations would betray the purpose of its founding, and prove irrelevant to the problems of our time. And through its inaction, the United States would resign itself to a future of fear.

That is not the America I know. That is not the America I serve. We refuse to live in fear. This nation -- in world war and in Cold War -- has never permitted the brutal and lawless to set history's course.

Now, as before, we will secure our nation, protect our freedom, and help others to find freedom of their own. Some worry that a change of leadership in Iraq could create instability and make the situation worse. The situation could hardly get worse, for world security, and for the people of Iraq.

he lives of Iraqi citizens would improve dramatically if Saddam Hussein were no longer in power, just as the lives of Afghanistan's citizens improved after the Taliban.

The dictator of Iraq is a student of Stalin, using murder as a tool of terror and control within his own cabinet, and within his own army, and even within his own family.

On Saddam Hussein's orders, opponents have been decapitated, wives and mothers of political opponents have been systematically raped as a method of intimidation, and political prisoners have been forced to watch their own children being tortured.

America believes that all people are entitled to hope and human rights -- to the non-negotiable demands of human dignity.

People everywhere prefer freedom to slavery; prosperity to squalor; self-government to the rule of terror and torture.

America is a friend to the people of Iraq. Our demands are directed only at the regime that enslaves them and threatens us. When these demands are met, the first and greatest benefit will come to Iraqi men, women, and children. The oppression of Kurds, Assyrians, Turkomans, Shi'a, Sunnis and others will be lifted. The long captivity of Iraq will end, and an era of new hope will begin.

Iraq is a land rich in culture, resources, and talent. Freed from the weight of oppression, Iraq's people will be able to share in the progress and prosperity of our time. If military action is necessary, the United States and our allies will help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.

Later this week the United States Congress will vote on this matter. I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq: that his only choice is full compliance -- and the time remaining for that choice is limited.

Members of Congress are nearing an historic vote, and I am confident they will fully consider the facts and their duties.

The attacks of September 11 showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs.

Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined -- and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice -- and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.

We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.

May God bless America.

Saddam = Osama = 9/11 = WMD = WTF?

There are various news reports about Colin Powell being qiute upset about the lack of WMD found in Iraq and seemingly everything else.

He only needs to read his own transcripts from the Nexis archive, watch himself on video here , or reread this statement he made during a news conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister, Amre Moussa. Here's the pertinent bit:

"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq..."

Seems pretty clear to me. Powell believed that Iraq was not a threat to the U.S. or its neighbors until it was politically convenient to do so. Bad Colin.

The VOA has a snip from Greg Theilmann, a man I often reference in the missing WMD/stovepiped intelligence game. It's short but sweet.

Greg Thielmann, who until late 2002 was director of the Office of Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, says the blame game now begins.

"The administration is finally admitting it did not present an accurate picture. And so the real question is, who is to blame," he said. "That is the hot issue: how much blame the intelligence community bears on this. And of course there are a number of people and organizations trying very hard to make sure none of the blame rubs off on the White House."

The VOA has much more. I have to hand it to Theilmann. He is an honest man in a deeply dishonest city.

Krugman

Another Bogus Budget

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Well, whaddya know. Even as the Republican leadership strong-armed the Medicare drug bill through Congress, the administration was sitting on estimates showing that the plan would cost at least $134 billion more than it let on. But let's not make too much of the incident. After all, it's not as if our leaders make a habit of faking their budget projections. Oh, wait.

The budget released yesterday, which projects a $521 billion deficit for fiscal 2004, is no more credible than its predecessors. When the administration promises much lower deficits in future years, remember this: two years ago it projected a fiscal 2004 deficit of only $14 billion. What's new this time is that the administration has decided to pay lip service to conservative complaints about runaway spending.

Over the past few months, many pundits have obediently placed the onus for rising deficits on "a vast increase in discretionary domestic spending," or words to that effect. By the way, the Heritage Foundation, which has orchestrated this campaign, is cagier than those pundits; it covers itself by relying on innuendo, never saying outright that domestic discretionary spending is the source of the deficit.

To mollify these critics, the new budget purports to shrink real domestic discretionary spending. This won't happen; even if it did, it would have a negligible impact on the deficit. But it isn't just a fake solution — it's a response to a fake problem.

The prime cause of giant budget deficits is a plunge in the federal government's tax take, which fell from 20.9 percent of G.D.P. in fiscal 2000 to a projected 15.7 percent this year, the lowest share since 1950. About 45 percent of this plunge can be attributed to the Bush tax cuts. The rest reflects the end of the stock market bubble, the still-depressed economy and — probably — growing tax sheltering and evasion.

It's true that increased spending also contributes to the deficit, and that there has been a substantial increase in discretionary spending — spending that, unlike such items as Social Security payments, isn't automatically determined by formulas. But the bulk of this increase has been related to national security.

Traditional budget measures distinguish between defense and nondefense discretionary spending. Even by these measures, defense accounts for most of the increase in recent years. But a better measure would group homeland security and other costs associated with 9/11 with defense, not domestic programs. The Center for American Progress — confirming related work by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities — estimates that from 2000 to 2004 security-related discretionary spending rose to 4.7 percent of G.D.P. from 3.4 percent, while nonsecurity spending rose to only 3.4 percent from 3.1 percent.

In other words, the role of nonsecurity spending in the plunge into deficit is trivial, compared with tax cuts and security spending. (Credit where credit is due: the administration's budget numbers show the same thing.) And even severe austerity on nonsecurity spending won't make a significant dent in the deficit.

So what will it take to get the budget deficit under control? Unless Social Security and Medicare are drastically cut — which is, of course, what the right wants — any solution has to include a major increase in revenue.

Many Democrats have called for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts, preserving the "middle class" cuts — those that convey at least some benefit to the 77 percent of taxpayers in the 15 percent tax bracket or below. Such a partial rollback would have reduced this year's budget deficit by about $180 billion; that would help, but one hopes politicians realize that it's not enough.

Another major source of revenue could be a crackdown on tax loopholes and tax evasion, which has reached epidemic proportions. In particular, what's going on with the tax on corporate profits? That source of revenue is down, as a percent of G.D.P., to 1930's levels. No, that's not a misprint. And receipts are not growing nearly as fast as one would expect, given an economic recovery that has bypassed workers but given big gains to their employers. An administration that actually tried to make corporations pay their taxes might be able to find $100 billion or more each year.

An eventual budget solution will involve all this, and more. But the first step is to stop looking for villains in all the wrong places. link

In case you were wondering, I am against anything but a balanced budget. At a time like this in U.S. history, difficult decisions need to be made. Let the Pentagon have a bake sale fer chrissakes.

Dubious bs.

I have noted that Google News has allowed a lot of un-newslike(?) sources into their links.

There was a discussion thread from Pravda a while back. Rushlimbaugh.com a 'news' outlet? Ya gotta be jokin.' Google apparently thinks so. I mean, the humans behind what is considered legitimate news and not.

When forum discussions and the tragically errant Rush Limbaugh are included alongside real news, I feel cheated.

I think I have a valid remedy. Seperate real news sources from the Limbaugh's, Townhall's, Pravda's and ALL op-eds.

I'm an equal opportunity discriminator. This should also apply to Salon, the Center for American Progress and others as well.

This is an example of how I might slice it up.

1) real news

2) op-eds from real news sources

3) e-zine articles

4) e-zine op-eds

5) everything else Google deems 'newsworthy'

This would be a snap for Google to implement. News sources would need to alter their code a bit to differentiate categories, but it would leave room for more content.

As it is now, an item of Limbaugh's sycophantic blather can achieve a better placement than a well researched hard news piece from the CS Monitor, That's just absurd.

Senate majority leader and overall strange guy Bill Frist apparently got a dose of ricin delivered to his office via USPS.

Frist reportedly called this 'a criminal act.' He ought to know, being a serial cat killer.

It has been reported that Frist himself is calling this a ricin attack, when only preliminary testing has been completed. Dr. Mengele Frist makes a tremendous blunder here. Until it is confirmed by further testing to conclusively be ricin, it remains unknown what substance this is.

A person trained in medicine ought to use critical thinking, but as I look closer at Washington, there is evidence to support the notion that you lose all critical thinking skills upon reaching the office of Congressman or higher.

Then of course, there is that famous Frist modesty. He likely just had to spill the beans(pun intended) before confirimng tests could be done.

Democrat's 'dream ticket.'

I've seen this on several message boards, and it now has lots of 'buzz.' A Kerry/Edwards ticket. FT is reporting that a Kerry/Edwards ticket looks like a good bet to unseat Bush In November.

I think it's pretty humorous that the Bush election team has pointed out Kerry's lack of 'high-profile domestic policy accomplishments' is somehow an achille's heel of sorts. Just what are Bush's 'domestic policy' achievements? Inquiring minds want to know.

I would point out Bush's stellar environmental record, and take my ball and go home. ;)

As far as this whole 'dream ticket' hypothesis goes, I really don't have much to say. Neither of these two guys impressed me much in face to face conversation. Then again, I doubt that Bush would leave a lasting impression either.

So, if it's Kerry/Edwards, they would be wise to have Dean and Clark on board before the general election. I think that Dean as Secretary of Health and Human Services, and Clark as NSA, or Secretary of Defense would seal this thing up.

Of course Bush could well implode before then.