Terrorizing the voters

Although she did not comment on suggestions that posters at polling places this November would feature a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney with the caption "Be careful when you vote," Minnesota's staunchly partisan Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer has included special instructions on spotting terrorists in the training for this year's election judges.



In a memo to the nearly 30,000 poll workers across the state, Kiffmeyer provided helpful tips including signs to watch for, such as people who appear to be nervous, "praying fervently" or smelling of "unusual herbal/flower water or perfume," or suspicious packages, vehicles and odors at the polling place. In a separate memo to emergency responders the Republican Secretary of State instructed them to first ensure the people at the site are safe before securing the election results and resuming voting at the site as soon as possible. The Republican Secretary of State dismissed any concerns that her actions might increase fear among voters or poll workers. Her office said that the new training is expected to help quash existing concerns and "eliminate the kind of uncertainty that has existed in the past."



What uncertainty that has existed in the past?



St. Paul Pioneer Press: Poll workers briefed on terror threats

Terrorizing the voters

Although she did not comment on suggestions that posters at polling places this November would feature a photo of Vice President Dick Cheney with the caption "Be careful when you vote," Minnesota's staunchly partisan Republican Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer has included special instructions on spotting terrorists in the training for this year's election judges.



In a memo to the nearly 30,000 poll workers across the state, Kiffmeyer provided helpful tips including signs to watch for, such as people who appear to be nervous, "praying fervently" or smelling of "unusual herbal/flower water or perfume," or suspicious packages, vehicles and odors at the polling place. In a separate memo to emergency responders the Republican Secretary of State instructed them to first ensure the people at the site are safe before securing the election results and resuming voting at the site as soon as possible. The Republican Secretary of State dismissed any concerns that her actions might increase fear among voters or poll workers. Her office said that the new training is expected to help quash existing concerns and "eliminate the kind of uncertainty that has existed in the past."



What uncertainty that has existed in the past?



St. Paul Pioneer Press: Poll workers briefed on terror threats

"Live Free or We'll Kill You"

Never worry. George W. Bush will provide a steady hand. "We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it."



But with daily life on the streets of Iraq a burning hell, the Bush administration has decided to "shift" $3.5 billion dollars away from repairing the water and electrical systems that we blew up when we invaded the country and spend the money instead killing more Iraqi citizens.



Here's the Bush administration logic: only $1.1 billion of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds has actually been spent because the ongoing war in the streets has made it unsafe for the U.S. contractors from Halliburton to get to work, and so the most reasonable thing is to take some of that money and use it to arm more Iraqis because, "without a significant reallocation of resources for the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects of a free and democratic Iraq undermined."



"Fewer people will get potable water. Fewer people will get the electricity they need in their homes or their businesses," said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the funds, "But that's just a recognition of the reality that unless you have the security you need, you can't have reconstruction."



In other words the Iraqis are responsible for this mess and we won't help until they fix it.



But wait, a differing opinion:



"If the shift of these funds slows down reconstruction, security may suffer in the long run," says Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).



So maybe thirsty people living in the dark are more likely to be hostile? They might even hold a grudge against those who did this to them.



It's kind of a modern day version of colonial New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto, except that the updated version is "Live Free or We'll Kill You."



Washington Post: U.S. Plans to Divert Iraq Money (washingtonpost.com)

"Live Free or We'll Kill You"

Never worry. George W. Bush will provide a steady hand. "We will succeed in Iraq. We're carrying out a decision that has already been made and will not change: Iraq will be a free, independent country, and America and the Middle East will be safer because of it."



But with daily life on the streets of Iraq a burning hell, the Bush administration has decided to "shift" $3.5 billion dollars away from repairing the water and electrical systems that we blew up when we invaded the country and spend the money instead killing more Iraqi citizens.



Here's the Bush administration logic: only $1.1 billion of $18.4 billion in reconstruction funds has actually been spent because the ongoing war in the streets has made it unsafe for the U.S. contractors from Halliburton to get to work, and so the most reasonable thing is to take some of that money and use it to arm more Iraqis because, "without a significant reallocation of resources for the security and law enforcement sector, the short-term stability of Iraq would be compromised and the longer-term prospects of a free and democratic Iraq undermined."



"Fewer people will get potable water. Fewer people will get the electricity they need in their homes or their businesses," said Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's foreign operations subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the funds, "But that's just a recognition of the reality that unless you have the security you need, you can't have reconstruction."



In other words the Iraqis are responsible for this mess and we won't help until they fix it.



But wait, a differing opinion:



"If the shift of these funds slows down reconstruction, security may suffer in the long run," says Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.).



So maybe thirsty people living in the dark are more likely to be hostile? They might even hold a grudge against those who did this to them.



It's kind of a modern day version of colonial New Hampshire's "Live Free or Die" motto, except that the updated version is "Live Free or We'll Kill You."



Washington Post: U.S. Plans to Divert Iraq Money (washingtonpost.com)

Central Intelligence: Help Wanted, No Experience Necessary

George W. Bush's choice to head up the CIA says he's "not qualified" for the job. Here is Porter Goss in an interview with Michael Moore on March 3, 2004:

"I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

Of course George Bush says "he's a good man," and I suppose that should be enough for you and me.



The video is included in footage for the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" that was not included in the final cut. The page linked below includes a video clip of Goss explaining exactly why he should not have the job.



Michael Moore.com: Interview of CIA Nominee Porter Goss: "I am not qualified."

Central Intelligence: Help Wanted, No Experience Necessary

George W. Bush's choice to head up the CIA says he's "not qualified" for the job. Here is Porter Goss in an interview with Michael Moore on March 3, 2004:

"I was a case officer, clandestine services office and yes I do understand the core mission of the business. I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified. I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably. And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day, "Dad you got to get better on your computer." Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

Of course George Bush says "he's a good man," and I suppose that should be enough for you and me.



The video is included in footage for the movie "Fahrenheit 9/11" that was not included in the final cut. The page linked below includes a video clip of Goss explaining exactly why he should not have the job.



Michael Moore.com: Interview of CIA Nominee Porter Goss: "I am not qualified."

The Commander of the War on Terror: He's no flip flopper

A brutal crack down on rebels, prosecution of dissenters, the lock down of newspapers, government contracts and assets distributed to cronies, meddling in the internal affairs neighboring countries, the abrupt cancellation of trade deals with foreign companies ...



This might sound like Iraq under the U.S. appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, or maybe New York City during the Republican convention, but no, it is the reality in Russia today. And the Bush administration is warning Russia to knock it off and treat their rebels with some respect.



Wha...?



Yes, it's true. George W. Bush, the Commander of the War on Terror, does not call the people who brutally killed Russian school children last week "terrorists," but rather persists in naming them "rebels" instead. And then, with out any hint of irony whatsoever, tells the Russians that these rebels are driven to such extreme reactions because the government of Russia has refused to sit down and talk to them and try to address their grievances.



Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia has not taken this so well. "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?"



Remember Mr. Putin? George W. Bush said he's looked into the soul of Vladimir Putin and found a man with whom he could do business. That was just a few months before Putin ordered the gassing of a theater in Russia that had been seized by the "rebels," thus killing hundreds of his own citizens.



It seems Mr. Putin, and perhaps the rest of us, are confused by the messages coming from the Commander of the War on Terror. Now we know that George W. Bush will not tolerate flip floppers, so there must be some other explanation. Let's see:

Valdimir Putin uses poison gas knowing it will kill his own citizens and Bush praises him for tough leadership in a crisis. Saddam Hussein gasses his own citizens and fifteen years later Bush drives him from power for it.



North Korea not only announces it has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them but also test fires a couple of missles toward California for good measure and Bush says we need to sit down and talk about it. Saddam Hussein has no such weapons and no plans to use them even if he had them and Bush invades and occupies his country for it.



In the face of domestic turmoil Russia reverts to its old ways of handling civil liberties and Bush chides them. In Iraq we install a dictator who implements a police state and shoots suspects without a trial and Bush says we are "delivering the Almighty's gift of freedom" to the long suffering people of Iraq.

Clearly Mr. Putin and the rest of us don't understand the complexities of international affairs and the subtelty and (dare we use the word?) nuance required to fight the War on Terror. That's got to be it because we know that George W. Bush is no opportunistic flip flopper. He told us so.



New York Times: Allies Against Terror, Sliding Farther Apart

The Commander of the War on Terror: He's no flip flopper

A brutal crack down on rebels, prosecution of dissenters, the lock down of newspapers, government contracts and assets distributed to cronies, meddling in the internal affairs neighboring countries, the abrupt cancellation of trade deals with foreign companies ...



This might sound like Iraq under the U.S. appointed Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, or maybe New York City during the Republican convention, but no, it is the reality in Russia today. And the Bush administration is warning Russia to knock it off and treat their rebels with some respect.



Wha...?



Yes, it's true. George W. Bush, the Commander of the War on Terror, does not call the people who brutally killed Russian school children last week "terrorists," but rather persists in naming them "rebels" instead. And then, with out any hint of irony whatsoever, tells the Russians that these rebels are driven to such extreme reactions because the government of Russia has refused to sit down and talk to them and try to address their grievances.



Vladimir Putin, the President of Russia has not taken this so well. "Why don't you meet Osama bin Laden, invite him to Brussels or to the White House and engage in talks, ask him what he wants and give it to him so he leaves you in peace?"



Remember Mr. Putin? George W. Bush said he's looked into the soul of Vladimir Putin and found a man with whom he could do business. That was just a few months before Putin ordered the gassing of a theater in Russia that had been seized by the "rebels," thus killing hundreds of his own citizens.



It seems Mr. Putin, and perhaps the rest of us, are confused by the messages coming from the Commander of the War on Terror. Now we know that George W. Bush will not tolerate flip floppers, so there must be some other explanation. Let's see:

Valdimir Putin uses poison gas knowing it will kill his own citizens and Bush praises him for tough leadership in a crisis. Saddam Hussein gasses his own citizens and fifteen years later Bush drives him from power for it.



North Korea not only announces it has nuclear weapons and is prepared to use them but also test fires a couple of missles toward California for good measure and Bush says we need to sit down and talk about it. Saddam Hussein has no such weapons and no plans to use them even if he had them and Bush invades and occupies his country for it.



In the face of domestic turmoil Russia reverts to its old ways of handling civil liberties and Bush chides them. In Iraq we install a dictator who implements a police state and shoots suspects without a trial and Bush says we are "delivering the Almighty's gift of freedom" to the long suffering people of Iraq.

Clearly Mr. Putin and the rest of us don't understand the complexities of international affairs and the subtelty and (dare we use the word?) nuance required to fight the War on Terror. That's got to be it because we know that George W. Bush is no opportunistic flip flopper. He told us so.



New York Times: Allies Against Terror, Sliding Farther Apart

9/11: three years later we take the war to the heart of the enemy

Everybody knows this: In order to win a war you have to strike at the heart of your enemy. You've got to hit your enemy at its center again and again until it is destroyed. If you are distracted by other targets or goals you will waste resources and precious lives and you will not prevail.



Military planners around the world have studied the writings of Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz. For more than a century his ideas have guided every war the U.S. has engaged in. (BTW: Clausewitz is also the one who said, "War is merely a continuation of politics.")



The problem, as should be obvious by now, is that this approach is not working anymore. In fact, the "strike at the heart" strategy hasn't really been very effective since the end of World War II.



Three years now into George W. Bush's "War on Terror" the results are not at all what the largest military force in the history of the world had hoped for:

The most obvious failure, of course, is that Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose. Worse than just evading capture however is the fact that he retains an unfettered ability to recruit, inspire, and motivate his warriors. In short, we haven't laid a glove on him.



And, even though we've killed or captured more than two-thirds of those who were the leadership of al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 (as George W. Bush on the campaign trail never ceases to remind nervous American voters), terrorism experts have been amazed at how quickly the group has reconstituted itself, mostly by associating with new "franchises" that have grown like mushrooms, particularly since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.



"The leadership (of al Qaeda) is still intact and over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq," the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London said last May in its latest assessment, one that is widely accepted among counterterrorist experts.

Clearly George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not going well. So what went wrong? There have been three fundamental mis-steps:

1) In his desperation to do something proactive and to give the appearance of bold action, George W. Bush declared war on a noun rather than naming a real enemy. It's easier to rally uncritical support for a war on a noun. Think of the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs." Surely there would be little criticism of a "War on Terror." But the problem is you can never tell when you've won a war on a noun. Like poverty and drugs, terrorism will always be with us, and so we can never win this war.



2) Then, a full month after the attacks of September 11, 2001, in the first campaign of the new War on Terror, Bush invaded Afghanistan because, he said, that was where we would find Osama Bin Laden and the headquarters of Al Qaeda. But it turns out that Al Qaeda didn't just sit and wait for us to react. No, instead they took full advantage of the four weeks between September 11 and our invasion of Afghanistan to move their leadership, their troops, and most of their materials elsewhere. But we were stuck in von Clausewitz paradigm, fighting the last war when "moving an Army" was much more difficult than it is now and the enemy could be expected to stay put while we got ready to strike at the heart. We were astonished when Al Qaeda wasn't standing right where they had been, waiting for us to come after them.



3) A year later, being frustrated in his war on a noun, and unable to lay a finger on Osama Bin Laden, Bush shifted the focus from a "War on Terror" to a "War on the Terrible." In Saddam Hussein he found the perfect target for a von Clausewitz "strike at the heart." Except that Hussein didn't have anything to do with the attack of September 11, and posed no threat what-so-ever to the United States. And so, while we were distracted by striking this new imagined enemy, this terrible man (who at least could provide us a heart at which to strike), Al Qaeda grew by leaps and bounds.

And so today, three years after the War on Terror began we have most of our military might bogged down in Iraq, surrounded by a resentful, if not actively hostile, population that can be counted on not to inform on a growing insurgency that mounts an average of more than 80 attacks on U.S. targets a day (four times more than one year ago). And the terrorists are busy capitalizing on a windfall created by the U.S. presence.



The old von Clausewitz tactics no longer work because we've given Al Qaeda opportunity to place the heart of the enemy right here at home.



Inter Press news Service: Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser

9/11: three years later we take the war to the heart of the enemy

Everybody knows this: In order to win a war you have to strike at the heart of your enemy. You've got to hit your enemy at its center again and again until it is destroyed. If you are distracted by other targets or goals you will waste resources and precious lives and you will not prevail.



Military planners around the world have studied the writings of Prussian military philosopher Carl von Clausewitz. For more than a century his ideas have guided every war the U.S. has engaged in. (BTW: Clausewitz is also the one who said, "War is merely a continuation of politics.")



The problem, as should be obvious by now, is that this approach is not working anymore. In fact, the "strike at the heart" strategy hasn't really been very effective since the end of World War II.



Three years now into George W. Bush's "War on Terror" the results are not at all what the largest military force in the history of the world had hoped for:

The most obvious failure, of course, is that Osama Bin Laden is still on the loose. Worse than just evading capture however is the fact that he retains an unfettered ability to recruit, inspire, and motivate his warriors. In short, we haven't laid a glove on him.



And, even though we've killed or captured more than two-thirds of those who were the leadership of al Qaeda on September 11, 2001 (as George W. Bush on the campaign trail never ceases to remind nervous American voters), terrorism experts have been amazed at how quickly the group has reconstituted itself, mostly by associating with new "franchises" that have grown like mushrooms, particularly since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003.



"The leadership (of al Qaeda) is still intact and over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq," the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London said last May in its latest assessment, one that is widely accepted among counterterrorist experts.

Clearly George W. Bush's "War on Terrorism" is not going well. So what went wrong? There have been three fundamental mis-steps:

1) In his desperation to do something proactive and to give the appearance of bold action, George W. Bush declared war on a noun rather than naming a real enemy. It's easier to rally uncritical support for a war on a noun. Think of the "War on Poverty" or the "War on Drugs." Surely there would be little criticism of a "War on Terror." But the problem is you can never tell when you've won a war on a noun. Like poverty and drugs, terrorism will always be with us, and so we can never win this war.



2) Then, a full month after the attacks of September 11, 2001, in the first campaign of the new War on Terror, Bush invaded Afghanistan because, he said, that was where we would find Osama Bin Laden and the headquarters of Al Qaeda. But it turns out that Al Qaeda didn't just sit and wait for us to react. No, instead they took full advantage of the four weeks between September 11 and our invasion of Afghanistan to move their leadership, their troops, and most of their materials elsewhere. But we were stuck in von Clausewitz paradigm, fighting the last war when "moving an Army" was much more difficult than it is now and the enemy could be expected to stay put while we got ready to strike at the heart. We were astonished when Al Qaeda wasn't standing right where they had been, waiting for us to come after them.



3) A year later, being frustrated in his war on a noun, and unable to lay a finger on Osama Bin Laden, Bush shifted the focus from a "War on Terror" to a "War on the Terrible." In Saddam Hussein he found the perfect target for a von Clausewitz "strike at the heart." Except that Hussein didn't have anything to do with the attack of September 11, and posed no threat what-so-ever to the United States. And so, while we were distracted by striking this new imagined enemy, this terrible man (who at least could provide us a heart at which to strike), Al Qaeda grew by leaps and bounds.

And so today, three years after the War on Terror began we have most of our military might bogged down in Iraq, surrounded by a resentful, if not actively hostile, population that can be counted on not to inform on a growing insurgency that mounts an average of more than 80 attacks on U.S. targets a day (four times more than one year ago). And the terrorists are busy capitalizing on a windfall created by the U.S. presence.



The old von Clausewitz tactics no longer work because we've given Al Qaeda opportunity to place the heart of the enemy right here at home.



Inter Press news Service: Three Years On, War on Terrorism Looks Like a Loser

14 to 1 - How do you like them odds?

By some estimates (see the website) we've managed to kill about 14 Iraqis for each and every American who's been killed. So it shouldn't surprise you much to read that many Iraqis are a little miffed at our mourning a mere 1,000 dead.



Independent News (UK): Despair in Iraq over the forgotten victims of US invasion

14 to 1 - How do you like them odds?

By some estimates (see the website) we've managed to kill about 14 Iraqis for each and every American who's been killed. So it shouldn't surprise you much to read that many Iraqis are a little miffed at our mourning a mere 1,000 dead.



Independent News (UK): Despair in Iraq over the forgotten victims of US invasion

1,000 Americans Dead and George W. Bush gives Iraq a Tax Cut

George W. Bush, by executive proclamation, gave Iraq the right to export thousands of goods duty free to the United States. However, due to the poor state of its economy and the on-going warfare in its streets, it is anticipated that Iraq will have difficulty taking advantage of this generous tax break.



In other news: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted that much of Iraq is no longer under U.S. control; the Bush administration announced that free elections, which had been planned for January, would probably be delayed leaving the U.S. appointed government in place; and the 1,000th American was killed in Iraq today.



New York Times: U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq

1,000 Americans Dead and George W. Bush gives Iraq a Tax Cut

George W. Bush, by executive proclamation, gave Iraq the right to export thousands of goods duty free to the United States. However, due to the poor state of its economy and the on-going warfare in its streets, it is anticipated that Iraq will have difficulty taking advantage of this generous tax break.



In other news: Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld admitted that much of Iraq is no longer under U.S. control; the Bush administration announced that free elections, which had been planned for January, would probably be delayed leaving the U.S. appointed government in place; and the 1,000th American was killed in Iraq today.



New York Times: U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq

Republican police tactics

Just days before George W. Bush took credit for delivering the almighty's gift of freedom to the people of Iraq, the Iraqi state police were arresting dozens of journalists at gunpoint in a Najaf hotel and taking them into custody.



(Those would be the same "police" hired and trained during the regime of U.S. Proconsul Paul Bremer and now under the control of U.S. appointed interim dictator, I mean Prime Minister, Ayad Alawi.)



According to reports in a Turkish newspaper, "Firing their guns in the air, the policemen, some masked, stormed into the rooms of journalists in the Najaf Sea hotel and forced them into vans and a truck."



Once at the jail, Najaf police chief Ghaleb al-Jezari told them, "You are brought here because I want to tell you that you never publish the truth. I speak the truth, but you never broadcast what we are." After the unexpected press conference at gunpoint, the police chief kissed some of the journalists and had the reporters dropped back to their hotel.



Actually, some of it sounds like the police tactics used against the protesters at the Republican national convention where record numbers were arrested, detained until after the end of the convention and then released without charges. Well, maybe except for the kissing part. And certainly the "If you don't do what I want you to do I'll kill you, but you have the freedom to do what ever you want" logic is consistent with many other Bush policies.



Turkish Press: Iraqi Police Raid Najaf Hotel, Round Up Journalists At Gunpoint

Republican police tactics

Just days before George W. Bush took credit for delivering the almighty's gift of freedom to the people of Iraq, the Iraqi state police were arresting dozens of journalists at gunpoint in a Najaf hotel and taking them into custody.



(Those would be the same "police" hired and trained during the regime of U.S. Proconsul Paul Bremer and now under the control of U.S. appointed interim dictator, I mean Prime Minister, Ayad Alawi.)



According to reports in a Turkish newspaper, "Firing their guns in the air, the policemen, some masked, stormed into the rooms of journalists in the Najaf Sea hotel and forced them into vans and a truck."



Once at the jail, Najaf police chief Ghaleb al-Jezari told them, "You are brought here because I want to tell you that you never publish the truth. I speak the truth, but you never broadcast what we are." After the unexpected press conference at gunpoint, the police chief kissed some of the journalists and had the reporters dropped back to their hotel.



Actually, some of it sounds like the police tactics used against the protesters at the Republican national convention where record numbers were arrested, detained until after the end of the convention and then released without charges. Well, maybe except for the kissing part. And certainly the "If you don't do what I want you to do I'll kill you, but you have the freedom to do what ever you want" logic is consistent with many other Bush policies.



Turkish Press: Iraqi Police Raid Najaf Hotel, Round Up Journalists At Gunpoint

As the rats don their life jackets, think about what might come next...the final triumph of the neo-conservatives

A number of key Bush advisers seem to be planning a hasty retreat before the beginning of the second term. And while it might sound pretty good to be rid of the likes of Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge, think about what might happen next.



According to a USA Today report, here are some possible scenarios:

• National Security Advisor Rice might either move to an other cabinet post, most likely Defense or State, or she might walk away completely to pursue a political career in California. In either case Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a likely successor.



• Powell is a virtual certainty to leave the Secretary of State slot and take along with him his chief deputy Richard Armitage. The potential successor mentioned most often is Paul Bremer, former Proconsul of Iraq and the architect of much of what went wrong after America's "catastrophically successful" invasion.



• At Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has already announced his plans to leave. How does Asa Hutchinson, a leader of the Clinton witch hunt crowd from the House, sound as the man to give us all confidence that we are safe and sound?



• Finally, Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to create another vacancy, though some administration officials say he might stay on for at least a year into the new term.

What we have to fear most in a second term George W. Bush is that he will have no pressure to moderate his arch conservative ways.



USA Today - Exodus expected at White House

As the rats don their life jackets, think about what might come next...the final triumph of the neo-conservatives

A number of key Bush advisers seem to be planning a hasty retreat before the beginning of the second term. And while it might sound pretty good to be rid of the likes of Condoleezza Rice, John Ashcroft, and Tom Ridge, think about what might happen next.



According to a USA Today report, here are some possible scenarios:

• National Security Advisor Rice might either move to an other cabinet post, most likely Defense or State, or she might walk away completely to pursue a political career in California. In either case Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz is a likely successor.



• Powell is a virtual certainty to leave the Secretary of State slot and take along with him his chief deputy Richard Armitage. The potential successor mentioned most often is Paul Bremer, former Proconsul of Iraq and the architect of much of what went wrong after America's "catastrophically successful" invasion.



• At Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has already announced his plans to leave. How does Asa Hutchinson, a leader of the Clinton witch hunt crowd from the House, sound as the man to give us all confidence that we are safe and sound?



• Finally, Attorney General John Ashcroft is expected to create another vacancy, though some administration officials say he might stay on for at least a year into the new term.

What we have to fear most in a second term George W. Bush is that he will have no pressure to moderate his arch conservative ways.



USA Today - Exodus expected at White House

Oh my god! You mean The Terminator will lie to keep Bush in office too!?!

"I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." That was just one of the stirring claims Arnold Schwarzenegger made during his prime-time speech at the Republican national convention last week. Picture the poor boy huddling in fear of the jack booted communists ruling his childhood!



The problem is, none of it is true.



Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, in Styria, a part of Austria within the British zone. (At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.)



"When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets," Schwarzenegger told the Republican convention.



But the Soviets had already left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, so any Soviet tanks or troops were gone two years before Arnold was born.



In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left."



But the fact is that after the Soviets left Austria was governed by coalition governments, and generally right-wing conservative political parties including the People's party and the Social Democratic party. Between 1945 and 1970, all Austria's chancellors were conservatives, not Socialists. And, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic.



Little wonder Schwartzenegger chose Richard Nixon as his role model in becoming a Republican.



London Free Press: Arnold history claim mocked

Oh my god! You mean The Terminator will lie to keep Bush in office too!?!

"I saw tanks in the streets. I saw communism with my own eyes." That was just one of the stirring claims Arnold Schwarzenegger made during his prime-time speech at the Republican national convention last week. Picture the poor boy huddling in fear of the jack booted communists ruling his childhood!



The problem is, none of it is true.



Schwarzenegger, now a naturalized U.S. citizen, was born on July 30, 1947, in Styria, a part of Austria within the British zone. (At the time, postwar Austria was occupied by the four wartime allies, which also included the United States, the Soviet Union and France.)



"When I was a boy, the Soviets occupied part of Austria. I saw their tanks in the streets," Schwarzenegger told the Republican convention.



But the Soviets had already left Styria in July 1945, less than three months after the end of the war, so any Soviet tanks or troops were gone two years before Arnold was born.



In his convention address, Schwarzenegger also said: "As a kid, I saw the Socialist country that Austria became after the Soviets left."



But the fact is that after the Soviets left Austria was governed by coalition governments, and generally right-wing conservative political parties including the People's party and the Social Democratic party. Between 1945 and 1970, all Austria's chancellors were conservatives, not Socialists. And, when Schwarzenegger left in 1968, Austria was run by a conservative government headed by chancellor Josef Klaus, a staunch Roman Catholic.



Little wonder Schwartzenegger chose Richard Nixon as his role model in becoming a Republican.



London Free Press: Arnold history claim mocked

"Congratulations people of Iraq! At least now you're free!"

"And the people of Iraq are now free!" Among many other unsupported claims, George W. Bush insisted that, thanks to resolute and unyielding leadership on his part, "the people of Iraq" are now able to enjoy the benefits of freedom.



I wonder what that means.



The citizens in Iraqi today are "free" to fully enjoy a 60% unemployment rate and watch as Halliburton and other U.S. corporations import thousands of foreign laborers to "rebuild" Iraq. They're also "free" to spend their time thinking about why their country needs to be "rebuilt" (which just might explain why they seem a little ungrateful for their "freedom").



And they have lots of other ways to enjoy their newfound "freedom," like watching the wholesale privatization of their nation's natural resources, infrastructure, economy and everything in between by the same U.S. corporations that are importing workers. No doubt they'll cry, "But at least we're free! Hooray for our liberators!"



They are also "free" to wonder why they no longer have drinkable water or electricity for more than a few hours a day. And they're free to watch as their fellow citizens are subject to arrest and detention followed by torture and murder in the same prisons that Saddam used for the very same purposes. But since those horrors are now being carried out by the U.S. appointed "interim" government, they'll sleep better knowing that at least they are "free."



General Accounting Office (GAO): Rebuilding Iraq: Contracting for Iraq Reconstruction

"Congratulations people of Iraq! At least now you're free!"

"And the people of Iraq are now free!" Among many other unsupported claims, George W. Bush insisted that, thanks to resolute and unyielding leadership on his part, "the people of Iraq" are now able to enjoy the benefits of freedom.



I wonder what that means.



The citizens in Iraqi today are "free" to fully enjoy a 60% unemployment rate and watch as Halliburton and other U.S. corporations import thousands of foreign laborers to "rebuild" Iraq. They're also "free" to spend their time thinking about why their country needs to be "rebuilt" (which just might explain why they seem a little ungrateful for their "freedom").



And they have lots of other ways to enjoy their newfound "freedom," like watching the wholesale privatization of their nation's natural resources, infrastructure, economy and everything in between by the same U.S. corporations that are importing workers. No doubt they'll cry, "But at least we're free! Hooray for our liberators!"



They are also "free" to wonder why they no longer have drinkable water or electricity for more than a few hours a day. And they're free to watch as their fellow citizens are subject to arrest and detention followed by torture and murder in the same prisons that Saddam used for the very same purposes. But since those horrors are now being carried out by the U.S. appointed "interim" government, they'll sleep better knowing that at least they are "free."



General Accounting Office (GAO): Rebuilding Iraq: Contracting for Iraq Reconstruction

How long is the trip from ignored to protester to disenfranchised to terrorist?

Once again, my friends, a story ignored by the U.S. media: Finally a judge has ordered the immediate release of anti-Bush protesters arrested and held without charges by the New York City Police ... and fined the city for its failure to comply, "These people have already been the victims of a process," State Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo told the city. "I can no longer accept your [the city's] statement that you are trying to comply."



Some other items under-reported by mainstream media:

Near 2,000 protesters have been arrested in New York since Sunday, almost four times as many as were arrested during the police riots of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.



Some 1,200 in one arrest alone makes it the largest single mass arrest in memory (where police used the novel tactic of simply surrounding everyone with an orange plastic snow fence and yelling "you're under arrest!").



The prisoners are taken to a makeshift jail in an abandoned bus warehouse where they are put into pens assembled of dog kennel chain link panels (think: Guantanamo Bay).



The media has been refused media access to the site and so no one really knows what conditions are like inside.



Most of the prisoners will have been held for the duration of the Republican convention, and most of them will never be charged with a crime.

So here's the picture: While the Republicans are inside telling stories, thrilling to an expertly produced entertainment extravaganza and hearing speeches about how Americans love freedom, outside those who feel powerless over the direction taken by their leaders and those who have been denied any voice whatsoever are fighting back the best way they can, and being arrested in record numbers and detained in dog kennels for as long as the Republican show runs, while the rest of us focus on whether or not the Bush twins are for real and wonder if Zell Miller has lost his mind.



Remember the opening scene David Lean's film version of Dr. Zhivago? You know, where the camera cuts back and forth between the elegant party going on in the red velvet curtained ballroom and the mob of angry protesters looking for jobs and food who are coming up the street. You will recall that it ends when the Russian police move in and brutally crush the unarmed protesters in one of the opening skirmishes of the Russian Revolution.



Or, for that matter, do you remember the looks on the faces of the Iraqi citizens when they finally got the chance to extract some measure of retribution on the bodies of dead invaders?



During the next two months bear this in mind: only about half of Americans will even bother to vote and the number of Americans who are doubtful that their votes will ever be accurately counted is at an all time high.



The Star (Toronto): New York fined for detentions

How long is the trip from ignored to protester to disenfranchised to terrorist?

Once again, my friends, a story ignored by the U.S. media: Finally a judge has ordered the immediate release of anti-Bush protesters arrested and held without charges by the New York City Police ... and fined the city for its failure to comply, "These people have already been the victims of a process," State Supreme Court Justice John Cataldo told the city. "I can no longer accept your [the city's] statement that you are trying to comply."



Some other items under-reported by mainstream media:

Near 2,000 protesters have been arrested in New York since Sunday, almost four times as many as were arrested during the police riots of the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.



Some 1,200 in one arrest alone makes it the largest single mass arrest in memory (where police used the novel tactic of simply surrounding everyone with an orange plastic snow fence and yelling "you're under arrest!").



The prisoners are taken to a makeshift jail in an abandoned bus warehouse where they are put into pens assembled of dog kennel chain link panels (think: Guantanamo Bay).



The media has been refused media access to the site and so no one really knows what conditions are like inside.



Most of the prisoners will have been held for the duration of the Republican convention, and most of them will never be charged with a crime.

So here's the picture: While the Republicans are inside telling stories, thrilling to an expertly produced entertainment extravaganza and hearing speeches about how Americans love freedom, outside those who feel powerless over the direction taken by their leaders and those who have been denied any voice whatsoever are fighting back the best way they can, and being arrested in record numbers and detained in dog kennels for as long as the Republican show runs, while the rest of us focus on whether or not the Bush twins are for real and wonder if Zell Miller has lost his mind.



Remember the opening scene David Lean's film version of Dr. Zhivago? You know, where the camera cuts back and forth between the elegant party going on in the red velvet curtained ballroom and the mob of angry protesters looking for jobs and food who are coming up the street. You will recall that it ends when the Russian police move in and brutally crush the unarmed protesters in one of the opening skirmishes of the Russian Revolution.



Or, for that matter, do you remember the looks on the faces of the Iraqi citizens when they finally got the chance to extract some measure of retribution on the bodies of dead invaders?



During the next two months bear this in mind: only about half of Americans will even bother to vote and the number of Americans who are doubtful that their votes will ever be accurately counted is at an all time high.



The Star (Toronto): New York fined for detentions

Neo-cons provide al-Quaeda top secret software

Imagine if prominent U.S. neo-conservatives and Israel had ties dating back some 30 years. And what if, thanks to those ties, Israel, managed to insert a "trap door" into some sophisticated high tech military software so that they could spy on us? But what if al-Qaeda managed to acquire the software on the black market in the late 1990s, and then used it to facilitate the group's global banking and money-laundering schemes?



No, it's not the newest Tom Clancy novel. According to sources, Pentagon investigators believe that's exactly what happened and that al-Qaeda used the software to spy on various U.S. agencies that could have detected or foiled the Sep. 11, 2001 attack.



Interpress (North America): Spy Probe Scans Neo-Con Israel Ties