Krugman – \"Patriots and Profits\"

December 27, 2003 at 3:46 pm
Contributed by:



Folks,

 

This
Krugman column was exceptionally good I thought–it tied together many of the
threads I have been following in recent days, and did so very well. Attached,
for those of you who won’t register with NYT.

 

Once you’re done with that, if you want to read a really frightening and
somewhat conspiratorial leftist analysis of the Bush team’s “end game,” check this sucker
out: 
(note that it was written on 3/17/03!): 

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/03/03/17.html

 

On to the Krugman:

 


 



The New York Times


December 16, 2003OP-ED COLUMNIST
Patriots and ProfitsBy PAUL
KRUGMAN



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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



Copyright
2003
 The New York
Times Company
| Home | Privacy
Policy
| Search | Corrections | Help | Back
to Top

Rate \"Bush in 30 Seconds\" Ads

December 22, 2003 at 8:36 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

It
seemed appropriate to wind up this year’s GRL with a little participatory
democracy fun. This was about the most fun I’ve had with this content in a long
time.

 

Next
year is going to be even better. I have plans for this list. Plans to get YOU
out on the street and on the phone, participating in your democracy like never
before. Yes, you. Gird yourselves. We’re gonna make ourselves heard next year.

—–Original Message—–
From: Eli Pariser, MoveOn Voter Fund
[mailto:moveon-help@list.moveon.org]
Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003
12:20 PM
Subject: Rate “Bush in 30 Seconds”
Ads

Dear MoveOn member,

When we announced the launch of our “Bush in 30
Seconds” ad contest back in October, we expected maybe 300 people would take the
time to make a TV ad that tells the truth about President Bush. But when we
reached the submissions deadline in early December, we had over 1,000 ads —
including some of the best political ads we’ve ever seen.

Now, we’re counting on you to help us narrow the
field from over 1,000 ads to 15 finalists. Our panel of celebrity judges will
pick the winning ad from among those finalists, and we’ll run it in January
during the week of Bush’s State of the Union address. All 15 of the top ads will
be featured in a Bush in 30 Seconds awards show at the Hammerstein Ballroom in
New York on January 12th.

You can start rating the ads right now
at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/vote/

We recommend viewing the ads on a high-speed Internet
connection — it’ll take a long time for them to load with dial-up. Also, you’ll
need Apple’s QuickTime software to view the ads. It’s free at:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/

The range and quality of the ads is remarkable. There
are cartoons, takeoffs, music videos, documentaries, and somber, moving works of
art. Ads have been submitted from every state in the country, and they feature
newborn babies, 95-year-old grandmothers, and everyone in between. And while
some of them probably aren’t grade-A material, even advertising industry
veterans have been impressed with the overall caliber.

When you log in to rate ads, you’ll be presented with
a selection drawn from the entire pool of ads. Our software spreads out the
ratings over all 1,019 of ads by selecting them in a random order. You’ll be
able to evaluate each ad according to four criteria, and submit that information
to move to the next ad — up to 20 randomly ordered ads a day. The online voting
will conclude at the end of the year — midnight, PST, on December 31st.

The success of this phase of the contest depends on
people rating a bunch of ads and inviting their friends to do the same. The
voting begins now at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/vote/ 


Enjoy.


Sincerely,
–Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah,
Peter, Wes, and Zack
  The MoveOn.org Team
  December
19th, 2003





Subscription Management
This is a message from MoveOn.org on
behalf of the MoveOn.org Voter Fund. To remove yourself (Chris Nelder) from this
list, please visit our subscription management page at:
http://moveon.org/s?i=2222-3402348-WG91tFbRbeXvJZ_pFvc1TA

Progress Report – Libya, Oil, Environment, and more!

December 22, 2003 at 8:09 pm
Contributed by:



Folks,

 

I know
I promised to stop recirculating these, and let you sign up for yourselves. But
I read every issue and want to recirculate it, for fear that you’ll miss it.
They really sock it to ya, every day. Sign up for their email and put my mind at
ease, will ya? OK, just…one…more. Why? Well, here’s the Cliff Notes to
today’s issue (if that isn’t too reductionist):

 

- This
week we got the exciting news that Libya was going to permit full weapons
inspections and abandon all plans for WMD. Why? Well, if you listen to Bush,
it’s because we put the fear o’ God in them with our little Iraq exploit, and
now they’re going to play ball, just to make the world a safer place (and get
out from under our sanctions). Well, ain’t that just peachy? So, you believe
that? Well, try this:

 

1. The
Libya deal coincides with the expiration of a 50-year lease signed between U.S.
oil companies and the Libyan regime, and “our
return to active participation in the Waha oil field area remains dependent upon
further authorization from the U.S. government.”

 

2.
Libya has made veiled suggestions that it could re-tender the fields to European
oil companies, arousing anger in the Bush administration.

 

3. Cheney has long lobbied on behalf
of the oil industry to lift sanctions on Libya since their
creation. ” Cheney
said oil and gas companies must explore where the reserves are, and that means
doing business in countries that may have policies that the U.S. does not like.”
Cheney said, “The long-term horizon of the oil industry is at odds with the
short term nature of politics.”

 

OK, still following this? Let’s have
that last line again:

“The long-term horizon of the oil industry is
at odds with the short term nature of politics.”

 

Yes
indeed. Anybody want to take a bet on how much longer before Cheney actually
mentions the Peak Oil problem?

 

So,
let’s take stock: we have our recent exploits in Iraq, and Liberia, various
countries of South America, now we’ve got Libya in line, anybody else see a
trend here? Is it justice and freedom for the people of Iraq and Liberia? Don’t
be silly. Is it relief from sanctions for humanitarian causes? Not on your life.
Those well-worn covers have served us well again, but the underlying story is
still the same: oil, oil, oil. And we cover that story with whatever else suits
the bill, all in our endless pursuit of denying the truth about “the long-term
horizon of the oil industry,” because we can’t handle the truth, and its
variance with “the short term nature of politics.”  (I’m also of the
opinion that the same dynamic is what keeps us from a reasonable and open and
scientific investigation of UFO phenomena, but that’s another topic.)

 

That’s
just one topic in today’s issue of The Progress Report. A couple more:

 

-
Merry Christmas. No more benefits for you long-term out of workers. No more for
you wounded vets, either. Now git out!

-
Condi’s gonna find a way to avoid having to testify about her part in the Bush
Administration’s lies about 9-11

-
According to a British report, we didn’t get Saddam at all! The Kurds did,
drugged him, and left him for us!

-
Don’t miss that buried little gem at the end about
“ENVIRO – WOLF IN SHEEP’S
CLOTHING”  It will probably make your eyes glaze over. And that’s the beauty
of it. Shenanigans only a bureaucrat could love.

 

 

–C

 

—–Original Message—–
From: Center for American Progress
[mailto:progress@americanprogress.com]
Sent: Monday, December 22, 2003
8:39 AM
Subject: The Progress Report












by David Sirota,
Christy Harvey and Judd Legum
Know the most first: Sign
up for email
delivery of The Progress Report
.
Please send any news tips to
pr@americanprogress.org.


December 22, 2003















LIBYA
Good News &
Questions


LIBYA
Oil
Questions


MEDIA
Murdoch’s Mega
Merger


ECONOMY
The Soft
Underbelly

UNDER THE RADAR


LIBYA
Good News
& Questions


The decision by
Libyan dictator Moammar Ghadafi to permit
UN weapons inspectors into his country
validated the argument
that the United States can achieve its strategic international goals
using tools other than military force – namely, diplomatic,
political and economic pressure. According to the LA
Times
, “Libya was virtually isolated from the world” because of
UN economic sanctions since it orchestrated the Pan Am 103 bombing.
Desperate to re-enter the international community, the North African
country has been trying for at least 10 years to have those
sanctions lifted. And while the developments are certainly positive,
they beg a number of questions.


WHY LIBYA
AND NOT IRAQ?:
President Bush has repeatedly told Americans
that Saddam Hussein could not be trusted to live up to statements
that he would disarm and allow UN inspectors into Iraq (which he did
before the war). Yet, the Administration is now telling Americans
that we can trust Ghadafi – a man with a similar record of
repression, aggression, and disdain for international law, not to
mention the fact that while Saddam never attacked the U.S., Ghadafi
masterminded the killing of 270 people
aboard Pan Am 103. On
Friday, two days shy of the 15th
anniversary of the airliner bombing
, Bush thanked
Ghadafi for “his commitment to disclose and dismantle all WMD in his
country” – yet failed to explain the disparity between the policy
towards Saddam and the Libyan leader.


WHY NOT
NORTH KOREA?:
Just this weekend, Vice
President Dick Cheney
exacerbated the North Korean situation,
blustering, “I have been charged by the president with making sure
that none of the tyrannies in the world are negotiated with. We
don’t negotiate with evil; we defeat it.” His comments came at the
same time the Administration was using quiet diplomacy and
negotiation with the Libyan dictator, begging the question: why the
disparity in policies towards the two nations?


BOMBING
VICTIMS’ FAMILIES REACTION:
The WSJ
reports “U.S. officials say they expect the families of the victims
of the 1988 Pan Am 103 bombing to raise strong arguments against
lifting the sanctions.” Stephanie Bernstein of Bethesda, MD, who
lost her husband, said the agreement, and the White House embrace of
it, was about “providing a Christmas present to the oil companies
and justifying the war in Iraq.” Other relatives of victims “were
upset that in Mr.
Bush’s announcement
of the Libyan pact he made no mention of Pan
Am 103.”


LIBYA
Oil Questions


Maybe one reason
for Cheney’s differing postures is the expected Libyan
oil bonanza
. Cheney has long lobbied on behalf of the oil
industry to lift sanctions on Libya since their creation. In 1996,
the Journal of Commerce reported that Cheney lashed out at the U.S.
government on foreign soil – a tactic conservatives have
historically attacked. On a visit to Abu Dhabi, Cheney criticized
U.S. sanctions on Libya saying, ”There seems to be an assumption
that somehow we know what’s best for everybody else and that we are
going to use our economic clout to get everybody else to live the
way we would like.” While many oil CEOs were loathe to attack the
U.S. sanctions – especially while visiting foreign nations – Cheney
was not. As the Journal of Commerce reported on 5/6/96, “Cheney,
Halliburton’s chief executive, has publicly slammed the sanctions
while others have not.”


CHENEY’S
OIL MOTIVES, PART 2:
In May of 1997, Cheney criticized the
Congress for tightening sanctions on Libya, and specifically said
the oil industry had a right to do business in countries with deadly
WMD. As Oil and Gas Journal reported, “Cheney said oil and gas
companies must explore where the reserves are, and that means doing
business in countries that may have policies that the U.S. does not
like.” Cheney said, “The long-term horizon of the oil industry is at
odds with the short term nature of politics.” The next year, Cheney
ratcheted up his campaign, once again criticizing the U.S. security
policy on foreign soil. According the Malaysian News Agency
reported, “Cheney hit out as his government for imposing economic
sanctions like the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.” He told the state news
agency on a visit there that U.S. sanctions on Libya are
“ineffective, did not provide the desire results and are a bad
policy.”


OTHER OIL
MOTIVES:
World Markets Analysis newsletter reports that the
Libya deal coincides with the expiration of a 50-year lease signed
between U.S. oil companies and the Libyan regime. Specifically, the
Oasis Group (which includes Marathon and ConocoPhillips – both major
political
campaign contributors
to the Administration) leased the Waha oil
fields in Libya, but have been blocked from doing business there
since sanctions were imposed in 1986. With the lease now expiring,
“Libya has made veiled suggestions that it could re-tender the
fields to European oil companies, arousing anger in the Bush
administration.” As a ConocoPhillips spokesperson confirmed to the
WSJ,
“our return to active participation in the Waha oil field area
remains dependent upon further authorization from the U.S.
government.”


MEDIA
Murdoch’s Mega Merger


In a devastating
blow for media diversity, the FCC, on a contentious 3 to 2 vote,
approved a “$6.6
billion media mega merger
” between DirecTV satellite television
service and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The merger will add
DirecTV’s 11 million subscriber to Murdoch’s
U.S. empire
which already includes local television stations
reaching more than 44% of the country, a major national broadcast
network, numerous cable and satellite channels, the most widely used
electronic program guide, newspapers, magazines, a publishing house
and movie studios. The unprecedented size and scope of Murdoch’s
holding will, according to FCC Commission Jonathan A. Adelstein, put
News Corp. “in a position to raise
programming prices for consumers
, harm competition in video
programming and distribution markets nationwide, and decrease the
diversity of media ownership.” 


THE LOCAL
PROGRAMMING PROBLEM:
The FCC-approved deal allows News Corp.
to effectively shut out local programming – especially in rural
markets. Although News Corp. initially pledged to provide local
television stations to satellite subscribers, they later revealed
that they intended to do so by incorporating conventional antennas
into its devices and “hope
the customer can receive a signal
.” For people who live in rural
areas, that will frequently mean they receive no signal at all.
Commissioner Adelstein says that News Corp’s position means that
“what could have been the most important public interest benefit of
this merger turns out to be nothing more than a sham.”


THE
COMPETITION PROBLEM:
News Corp. owns a vast array of
television outlets – including many which feature highly coveted
regional sports programming. The acquisition of DirecTV will give
News Corp even more bargaining clout when it negotiates
retransmission fees with cable and satellite competitors. Even the
FCC recognized that this was a problem. In approving the merger, the
FCC required that “its Fox subsidiary offer
its programming to other cable and satellite operators on the same
terms
as it does to DirecTV.” The FCC also required that News
Corp. accept “arbitration of any disputes” and must continue to
provide programming while the dispute is being resolved. One
problem: “the
benefits of these conditions disappear without a trace after six
years
.”


THE COST
PROBLEM:
When News Corp. pitched the merger to the FCC it
claimed that the merger “will give them the scale and scope to
compete more effectively.”  But News Corp. failed to
“demonstrate that any
of these alleged savings would be passed on to consumers
nor did
they evince great enthusiasm for doing so.” News Corp. produced very
little data as to how the transaction “could possibly discipline
rising cable rates.” FCC Commissioner Michael J. Copps said that the
likelihood that News Corp’s acquisition of the FCC would lower
prices for consumers “is so
remote as to be invisible
.”


FOLLOW
FOX’S MONEY:
Ever wonder how Murdoch usually gets what he
wants? News Corp. spent nearly
$10 million on lobbying from 1999 to 2002
. Murdoch himself has
met personally with FCC commissioners and key lawmakers several
times. For the 2004 election, News Corp. has already contributed
$200,000. For the 2000 and 2002 cycles the company’s contributions
exceeded $1.7 million dollars.  To read more about Murdoch’s
impact on the Bush Administration, see the Murdoch item in the
December 2nd edition of the Progress
Report
.


OTHER
QUESTIONS OF CONTENT:
The Bush Administration has announced
plans to “transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in
an attempt to supplement media coverage
from that war-torn
country.” The government produced programming is “designed to put a
more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks.” It
was created in response to “White House concern that coverage of
Iraq had focused disproportionately on the casualty count” – and
news stations are outraged. Says one news editor, “I’m kind of
appalled by it. I think it’s very troubling I think the government
has no business being in the news business.” But is coverage really
biased against the Administration? Editor and Publisher magazine
asks the question: “When
will the press stop circulating dubious or fabricated claims

whether from Bush administration officials or intelligence
abroad?”


ECONOMY
The Soft Underbelly


According to the
Congressional
Budget Office
, it turns out we can’t have our cake and eat it,
too. As a new report shows, the country has to either radically rein
in spending or increase taxes unless it wants to be hit with giant
deficits and “soaring public debt.” In fact, the CBO concluded,
“Unless taxation reaches levels that are unprecedented in the United
States, current spending policies will probably be financially
unsustainable
over the next 50 years.” And while the Bush
Administration has said that economic growth will outpace the
deficits created by its tax cuts, CBO says “the problem is so
immense that economic growth alone will not be enough to solve it.”
And the country has lost the luxury of time in dealing with the
problem: “‘The longer that
lawmakers delay
acting to counter an unsustainable budgetary
situation, the larger the spending cuts or tax increases will
eventually have to be,’ the 60-page study warned.” See American
Progress’s perspectives on current fiscal policies HERE.


LEFT OUT
IN THE COLD:
Yesterday, “more
than 90,000 people
who have been out of work for months [lost]
their federal benefits” as “the program to aid the long-term
unemployed expire[d].” While many progressive lawmakers demanded
Congress and the President extend the jobless benefits, both
refused, and the cutoffs began on December 21 – and they affect a
broad swath of people. According to Maurice Emsellem, public policy
director for the National Employment Law Project, “It’s a really
diverse group of people who are running out of benefits —
higher-income, dot-commers, lower-wage workers, and manufacturing
employees. It’s people from every industry, from all
states…Whatever’s going on with the economy, it’s not translating
into significant job growth.”


CORPORATIONS TRUMP INDIVIDUALS…AGAIN:
Conservatives like Tom “Nothing
is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes
” DeLay
claim there is “no
reason
” to extend benefits to help these struggling Americans.
However, at the same time, the House passed an extension for the
temporary tax breaks designed to provide relief for corporations
during the economic crisis. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities
, “The House approach implies that corporations
need continued support amidst a still-weak economy, but that
laid-off workers do not. This is despite the fact that firms might
not use the tax breaks to hire new workers.” Even by Scrooge
standards, this doesn’t make economic sense: A study by economy.com concluded
that, as a general rule, “each dollar of new federal expenditures
for unemployment compensation generated an increase in…GDP of
$1.73.” The study found, by contrast, that “for each dollar used
for…corporate tax breaks…GDP would rise less than
$0.35.”


WORKERS
TAKE THE HIT:
Why are so many workers being left out of the
economic recovery? According to the
NYT
, “while profits have shot up as a percentage of national
income, reaching their highest level since the mid-1960’s, labor’s
share is shrinking. Not since World War II has the distribution been
so lopsided in the aftermath of a recession.” Employment rolls are
down (2.4 million jobs smaller than when the recession began in
March 2001), and the average hourly wage is “rising at an annual
rate of less than 2%, barely enough to keep up with inflation, mild
as it is now.” More and more technological jobs are “offshoring
to India and China, where employees will work for about $20,000 less
than here in the states. As the bargaining power of labor has
deteriorated over the past decade (thanks to union-busters like
Wal-Mart), workers as a whole have suffered the hit. “Rather than
increasing output per worker, many companies maintained existing
output and raised the productivity growth rate by getting rid of
workers.” Read University of Georgia guest columnist Jeffrey
Wenger’s “Jobless Recovery” column HERE.


HEALTH
CARE HARDSHIP:
As workers remain outside of the recovery
loop and require more services from the states, decreased tax
revenues in the states have made that harder to achieve. In many
cases, something’s got to give. Unfortunately for six states, that
“something” is health care for poor kids. According to the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities
, Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Montana
and Utah “have stopped enrolling eligible children in their State
Children’s Health Insurance Programs” due to increased budget
pressures. The result? Tens of thousands of kids left uninsured.
“Because three of the six states with freezes do not maintain
waiting lists, it is impossible to know exactly how many children
nationally are affected by the freezes.” Florida’s waiting list
contained more than 44,000 eligible children as of November
14.


Blog Entry of the
Day
Hit and Run


“Seriously,
though, if we did see holiday attacks that ‘rival’ or
‘exceed’ 9/11, would there be any political will whatever to hold
the line on civil liberties? There’s been a gradual return to sanity
among many of the legislators who voted for PATRIOT, and moves to
repeal provisions that threaten privacy without making us
appreciably safer. An attack won’t change the wisdom of those
provisions, but it’d likely make that momentum evaporate.” (Full
Entry HERE)


Email your nominations
for blog entry of the day to pr@americanprogress.org









EDUCATION – MANDATE MINUS MONEY: 
President Bush’s plan to improve schools through the No Child
Left Behind bill is meeting with displeasure by the states
trying to implement it without proper funding. In Pennsylvania,
one school district is suing the Pennsylvania Department of
Education “to prevent the state from imposing any sanctions
until it receives financial assistance that fully funds the
cost of complying with the federal law.” Massachusetts
Superintendent William Travis claims the requirement of
teacher “certification as required under the federal No Child
Left Behind Act is another example of a mandate minus money.”
The state of Utah
is considering turning its back on the legislation altogether
because of funding issues.


CIVIL LIBERTIES – NUMBERS SOMETIMES LIE:
The Justice Department has been touting “a list of more than
280 cases that the department cites as evidence that it is
winning the war on terrorism.” The list has been “regularly
highlighted by Ashcroft and other Justice Department officials
in speeches and congressional testimony, and even by President
Bush.” But when the LA
Times
asked for documentation of the Justice Department
claims the “department declined to provide a complete
accounting of the terrorism-related prosecutions that Ashcroft
and others cite.” After the LA Times filed a Freedom of
Information Act request they received “a highly redacted
accounting covering only about half the number that Ashcroft
trumpets.” Included in that list were “two New Jersey men,
operators of small grocery stores, who were convicted of
accepting hundreds of boxes of stolen breakfast cereal, in a
crime that occurred 16 months before the terrorist
hijackings.” A Justice Department spokesman admitted that some
of the cases included in the count “don’t necessarily involve
terrorists or people convicted of terrorism-related
crimes.”


TROOPS – LOCKED IN A NEW BATTLE: Time
Magazine
has named the American soldier, “who bears the
duty of ‘living with and dying for a country’s most fateful
decisions,’” this year’s Person of the Year. Maybe the U.S.
government needs to read the article. According to CBS news,
the U.S. is forcing wounded soldiers out of the Army while
making it harder for veterans’ rights groups to get
information used to help the troops plead their case. As
wounded soldiers fight against being elbowed out of the Army
due to their disabilities, one activist group trying to help
them has been faced with a new wall of secrecy. While he
usually has easy access to wounded soldiers, David Gorman,
executive director of Disabled American Veterans, says, “I
don’t know if it’s a clouded secret about who’s coming back,
who’s there, the nature of their disabilities, the nature of
their wounds or not but there is not the kind of unfettered
access that we used to have at Walter Reed.” As explanation,
“a spokesman for Walter Reed Army Medical Center says the
restricted access is the result of post 9/11 security concerns
and new federal guidelines protecting patient privacy, which
by coincidence took
effect just as the war in Iraq was starting
.” For more on
how our troops are being mistreated, see this American
Progress backgrounder
.


9/11
– CONDI RESISTS:
Time
Magazine
also reports that the “commission investigating
the 9/11 attacks continues to be at odds with the White House
over access to key information and witnesses. Two government
sources tell TIME that National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice is arguing over ground rules for her appearance in part
because she does not want to testify under oath or, according
to one source, in public.” As the commission delves into 9/11,
Rice faces tough questions. Rice made a comment last year that
no one “could have predicted that they would try to use
a…hijacked airplane as a missile.” It was later revealed that
“there was years of intelligence about Al Qaeda’s interest in
airplane attacks.”


EDUCATION – MAKING A MARK IN MAINE: One
state is holding strong to its commitment to kids: the state
of Maine has a revolutionary way of addressing the education
problems in the country – a first-in-the-nation program to provide students with
laptops
. Former Gov. Angus King “proposed Maine’s
revolutionary laptop program in 2000, and now every
seventh- and eighth-grader
in state public schools is
provided with a laptop computer.” The group of business
leaders and educators that made this happen now “hopes to
raise enough money to add ninth-graders next year and one
grade each year thereafter until students in grades seven
through 12 have laptop computers as part of their education.”
The program to give every student the use of a free Apple
iBook will eventually cost about $18 to $25 million – or 1% of
the money spent on education per year – and carries a lot of
bang for the buck. According to the Maine
Education Policy Research Institute
, the “mid-year
evidence indicates that the laptop program is having many
positive effects on teachers and their instruction, and on
students’ engagement and learning” and “82.7 percent of the
students said the laptops improved their school work.”
Cash-strapped Maine faces fiscal pressure (the shortfall in
Medicaid alone is $113 million), but so far current Gov.
John Baldacci
has resisted cutting the program, saying
he’s “determined” to keep the laptop program alive.


EDUCATION – A HEARTWARMING WORK OF STAGGERING
GENEROSITY:
Plenty of progressives talk about making a
difference in their communities; here’s a guy doing it. David
Eggers, best-selling author of A Heartbreaking Work of
Staggering Genius and founder of the cutting-edge literary
society McSweeney’s,
has turned his time and talent to helping school kids. The
result is the phenomenal 826 Valencia. “Called
826 Valencia (after its street address), the
learning emporium
has a reading room done in
Moroccan-style furnishings where young people can study. There
is also a college-scholarship program for students interested
in writing. Eggers and about 400 volunteers teach writing and
comics creation, run workshops on SAT preparation and help
kids launch student publications. They deploy 20 to 30 tutors
at a time into classrooms at the request of teachers for
one-on-one work on student writing.”


ENVIRO – WOLF IN SHEEP’S CLOTHING:
According to the Center for American Progress, “The
Administration has opened yet another front in its ongoing
battle to undo years of environmental, health and safety
protections.” The newest salvo: The OMB
has proposed
that independent research on environmental
regulation be subjected to peer review, while research funded
by industries is given “considerably more weight.” The two
problems with this: “First, by OMB design, the peer review
panels would slant toward industry. The proposal warns
agencies away from using panelists who have received federal
funding for research, and from those who are deemed
sympathetic to regulation, thus shrinking the universe of
eligible non-industry researchers. Second, research conducted
by industry for such things as pesticide-licensing or to
request permission to fill in a wetlands area as part of a
construction project would simply be exempt from peer review.”
According to Rep.
Henry Waxman
, “the OMB proposal is a wolf in sheep’s
clothing. Under the guise of promoting sound science, OMB is
advancing a far-reaching policy that will impede efforts to
protect health and the environment and open the door to
conflicts of interest in the regulatory process.”


IRAQ
– “WE” GOT ‘EM?
According to Kurdish newspapers, the
U.S. have been a little hasty in taking credit for the capture
of Saddam Hussein last week. “Washington’s claims that
brilliant US intelligence work led to the capture of Saddam
Hussein are
being challenged by reports
sourced in Iraq’s Kurdish
media claiming that its militia set the circumstances in which
the US merely had to go to a farm identified by the Kurds to
bag the fugitive former president…Little attention was paid
to a line in Pentagon briefings that some of the Kurdish
militia might have been in on what was described as a “joint
operation”; or to a statement by Ahmed Chalabi, head of the
Iraq National Congress, which said that “Qusrat and his PUK
forces had provided vital information and more.” ABC
reports
that, according to one British tabloid, “Saddam
Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken
prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for
American soldiers to recover him.”


HEALTH CARE – A REBEL WITH A CAUSE: The
NYT
reports
that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich refuses to be
cowed, leading the fight for cheaper drugs for Illinois
residents. He “will ask the federal authorities to permit the
state to ignore federal law and buy prescription drugs from
Canada, aides said Sunday.” Blagojevich, who has been trying
to work within the parameters of the law, will ask HHS Sec.
Tommy Thompson to allow “Illinois to be designated for the
nation’s first ‘federally approved drug importation pilot
program.’…Under his proposal, the federal authorities would
waive the law and allow Illinois to save what the governor
estimates could be up to $90.7 million a year by buying
Canadian medicine for state employees and retirees.” Peter
Pitts, FDA associate commissioner for external relations,
claims “safety…is his agency’s central concern.” However,
Chicago Tribune on 9/23/03 reported that, when asked to back
up these safety claims, William Hubbard, another senior
associate commissioner at the FDA, was forced to admit that he
“knows of no” examples of seniors being harmed from buying
cheaper medicines from Canada, and the agency’s director of
pharmacy affairs Tom McGinnis said, “I can’t think of one
thing off the top of my head where somebody died or somebody
got put in the hospital because of these medications. I
just don’t know if there’s anything like
that
.”








 Don’t
Miss

CONTEST:
For the December 23 Holiday Edition of the Progress Report, we
will be formulating a list of those who have been naughty and
those who have been nice over the last year. Please submit
entries – with justifications/links to background material –
at pr@americanprogress.org.


ECONOMY:
Why the supposed “recovery” is not helping average
workers.


9/11:
National Security Adviser Condi Rice might refuse to testify
before independent commission.


HEALTH
CARE:
New state-by-state report on health care
cuts.


BLOGS: Progress Report unveils its new “Blog
of the day” section, highlighting bloggers each day and
soliciting submissions. See
below
.


A permanent link to this Progress
Report can be found in the archives.










 Daily Grill


“We’ve upset the
al-Qaeda networks to the point that they can’t do anything
right now.”


- House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX), 12/21/03


“Federal
officials said that because fresh intelligence suggests al
Qaeda is planning multiple catastrophic terrorist attacks in
the United States, they were raising the national threat alert
status to ‘high risk,’ or code orange.”


- WP, 12/22/03








 Daily
Outrage

Because Congress
and the Administration refused to act, 90,000
people
will be cut off from unemployment benefits during
the Christmas week.








 Archives

Progress
Report


Columns


Cartoons

Letters the Troops Have Sent Me… by Michael Moore

December 22, 2003 at 8:07 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

Here’s
a must-read. Oh, and did you hear about the new media station that our
government is going to start with your money, so you won’t have to miss
their slant on the news and have all those pesky journalists in the way?

 

–C

 

—–Original Message—–
From: mailinglist@michaelmoore.com
[mailto:mailinglist@michaelmoore.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 20,
2003 1:24 PM
Subject: Letters the Troops Have Sent Me… by Michael
Moore


Letters the Troops Have Sent Me… by Michael Moore


December 19, 2003


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


An Army private, still in Iraq and wishing to remain anonymous, writes:


I would like to tell you how difficult it is to serve under a man who was
never elected. Because he is the president and my boss, I have to be very
careful as to who and what i say about him. This also concerns me a great
deal… to limit the military’s voice is to limit exactly what America stands
for… and the greater percentage of us feel completely underpowered. He
continually sets my friends, my family, and several others in a kind of danger
that frightens me beyond belief. I know several other soldiers who feel the same
way and discuss the situation with me on a regular basis.


Jerry Oliver of the U.S. Army, who has just returned from Baghdad,
writes:


I have just returned home from “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. I spent 5
months in Baghdad, and a total of 3 years in the U.S. Army. I was recently
discharged with Honorable valor and returned to the States only to be horrified
by what I’ve seen my country turn into. I’m now 22 years old and have discovered
America is such a complicated place to live, and moreover, Americans are almost
oblivious to what’s been happening to their country. America has become “1984.”
Homeland security is teaching us to spy on one another and forcing us to become
anti-social. Americans are willingly sacrificing our freedoms in the name of
security, the same Freedoms I was willing to put my life on the line for. The
constitution is in jeopardy. As Gen. Tommy Franks said, (broken down of course)
One more terrorist attack and the constitution will hold no meaning.


And a Specialist in the U.S. Army wrote to me this week about the capture of
Saddam Hussein:


Wow, 130,000 troops on the ground, nearly 500 deaths and over a billion
dollars a day, but they caught a guy living in a hole. Am I supposed to be
dazzled?


There are lots more of these, straight from the soldiers who have been on the
front lines and have seen first hand what this war is really about.


I have also heard from their friends and relatives, and from other veterans.
A mother writing on behalf of her son (whose name we have withheld) wrote:


My son said that this is the worst it’s been since the “end” of the war.
He said the troops have been given new rules of engagement, and that they are to
“take out” any persons who aggress on the Americans, even if it results in
“collateral” damage. Unfortunately, he did have to kill someone in self defense
and was told by his commanding officer ‘Good kill.’


“My son replied ‘You just don’t get it, do you?’


“Here we are…Vietnam all over again.


From a 56 year old Navy veteran, relating a conversation he had with a young
man who was leaving for Iraq the next morning:


What disturbed me most was when I asked him what weapons he carried as a
truck driver. He told me the new M-16, model blah blah blah, stuff never made
sense to me even when I was in. I asked him what kind of side arm they gave him
and his fellow drivers. He explained, “Sir, Reservists are not issued side arms
or flack vests as there was not enough money to outfit all the Reservists, only
Active Personnel”. I was appalled to say the least.


“Bush is a jerk agreed, but I can’t believe he is this big an Asshole not
providing protection and arms for our troops to fight HIS WAR!


From a 40-year old veteran of the Marine Corps:


Why is it that we are forever waving the flag of sovereignty, EXCEPT when
it concerns our financial interests in other sovereign states? What gives us the
right to tell anyone else how they should govern themselves, and live their
lives? Why can’t we just lead the world by example? I mean no wonder the world
hates us, who do they get to see? Young assholes in uniforms with guns, and
rich, old, white tourists! Christ, could we put up a worse first
impression?


(To read more from my Iraq mailbag — and to read these above letters in full
– go to my website: http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/dudewheresmycountry/soldierletters/index.php)


Remember back in March, once the war had started, how risky it was to make
any anti-war comments to people you knew at work or school or, um, at awards
ceremonies? One thing was for sure — if you said anything against the war, you
had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: “BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!”
Failing to do that meant that you were not only unpatriotic and un-American,
your dissent meant that YOU were putting our kids in danger, that YOU might be
the reason they lose their lives. Dissent was only marginally tolerated IF you
pledged your “support” for our soldiers.


Of course, you needed to do no such thing. Why? Because people like you have
ALWAYS supported “the troops.” Who are these troops? They are our poor, our
working class. Most of them enlisted because it was about the only place to get
a job or receive the guarantee of a college education. You, my good friends,
have ALWAYS, through your good works, your contributions, your activism, your
votes, SUPPORTED these very kids who come from the other side of the tracks. You
NEVER need to be defensive when it comes to your “support” for the “troops” —
you are the only ones who have ALWAYS been there for them.


It is Mr. Bush and his filthy rich cronies — whose sons and daughters will
NEVER see a day in a uniform — they are the ones who do NOT support our troops.
Our soldiers joined the military and, in doing so, offered to give THEIR LIVES
for US if need be. What a tremendous gift that is — to be willing to die so
that you and I don’t have to! To be willing to shed their blood so that we may
be free. To serve in our place, so that WE don’t have to serve. What a
tremendous act of selflessness and generosity! Here they are, these 18, 19, and
20-year olds, most of whom have had to suffer under an unjust economic system
that is set up NOT to benefit THEM — these kids who have lived their first 18
years in the worst parts of town, going to the most miserable schools, living in
danger and learning often to go without, watching their parents struggle to get
by and then be humiliated by a system that is always looking to make life harder
for them by cutting their benefits, their education, their libraries, their fire
and police, their future.


And then, after this miserable treatment, these young men and women, instead
of coming after US to demand a more just society, they go and join the army to
DEFEND us and our way of life! It boggles the mind, doesn’t it? They not only
deserve our thanks, they deserve a big piece of the pie that we dine on, those
of us who never have to worry about taking a bullet while we fret over which
Palm Pilot to buy the nephew for Christmas.


In fact, all that these kids in the army ask for in return from us is our
promise that we never send them into harm’s way unless it is for the DEFENSE of
our nation, to protect us from being killed by “the enemy.”


And that promise, my friends, has been broken. It has been broken in the
worst way imaginable. We have sent them into war NOT to defend us, not to
protect us, not to spare the slaughter of innocents or allies. We have sent them
to war so Bush and Company can control the second largest supply of oil in the
world. We have sent them into war so that the Vice President’s company can bilk
the government for billions of dollars. We have sent them into war based on a
lie of weapons of mass destruction and the lie that Saddam helped plan 9-11 with
Osama bin Laden.


By doing all of this, Mr. Bush has proven that it is HE who does not support
our troops. It is HE who has put their lives in danger, and it is HE who is
responsible for the nearly 500 American kids who have now died for NO honest,
decent reason whatsoever.


The letters I’ve received from the friends and relatives of our kids over
there make it clear that they are sick of this war and they are scared to death
that they may never see their loved ones again. It breaks my heart to read these
letters. I wish there was something I could do. I wish there was something we
all could do.


Maybe there is. As Christmas approaches (and Hanukkah begins tonight), I
would like to suggest a few things each of us could do to make the holidays a
bit brighter — if not safer — for our troops and their families back home.


1. Many families of soldiers are hurting financially, especially those
families of reservists and National Guard who are gone from the full-time jobs
(“just one weekend a month and we’ll pay for your college education!”). You can
help them by contacting the Armed Forces Emergency Relief Funds at http://www.afrtrust.org/
(ignore the rah-rah military stuff and remember that this is money that will
help out these families who are living in near-poverty). Each branch has their
own relief fund, and the money goes to help the soldiers and families with
paying for food and rent, medical and dental expenses, personal needs when pay
is delayed, and funeral expenses. You can find more ways to support the troops,
from buying groceries for their families to donating your airline miles so they
can get home for a visit, by going here.


2. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed by our bombs and
indiscriminate shooting. We must help protect them and their survivors. You can
do so by supporting the Quakers’ drive to provide infant care kits to Iraqi
hospitals—find out more here: http://www.afsc.org/iraq/relief/default.shtm. You can also
help the people of Iraq by supporting the Iraqi Red Crescent Society—here’s how
to contact them: http://www.ifrc.org/address/iq.asp, or you can make an online
donation through the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies by going here: http://www.ifrc.org/HELPNOW/donate/donate_iraq.asp.


3. With 130,000 American men and women currently in Iraq, every community in
this country has either sent someone to fight in this war or is home to family
members of someone fighting in this war. Organize care packages through your
local community groups, activist groups, and churches and send them to these
young men and women. The military no longer accepts packages addressed to “Any
Soldier,” so you’ll have to get their names first. Figure out who you can help
from your area, and send them books, CDs, games, footballs, gloves,
blankets—anything that may make their extended (and extended and extended…) stay
in Iraq a little brighter and more comfortable. You can also sponsor care
packages to American troops through the USO: http://www.usocares.org/.


4. Want to send a soldier a free book or movie? I’ll start by making mine
available for free to any soldier serving in Iraq. Just send me their name and
address in Iraq (or, if they have already left Iraq, where they are now) and the
first thousand emails I get at soldiers@michaelmoore.com will receive a free copy of
“Dude…” or a free “Bowling…” DVD.


5. Finally, we all have to redouble our efforts to end this war and bring the
troops home. That’s the best gift we could give them — get them out of harm’s
way ASAP and insist that the U.S. go back to the UN and have them take over the
rebuilding of Iraq (with the US and Britain funding it, because, well, we have
to pay for our mess). Get involved with your local peace group—you can find one
near where you live by visiting United for Peace, at: http://www.unitedforpeace.org and the Vietnam Veterans Against
War: http://www.vvaw.org/contact/. A large demonstration is being
planned for March 20, check here for more details: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=2136. To get a
“Bring Them Home Now” bumper sticker or a poster for your yard, go here: http://bringthemhomenow.org/yellowribbon_graphics/index.html.
Also, back only anti-war candidates for Congress and President (Kucinich, Dean,
Clark, Sharpton).


I know it feels hopeless. That’s how they want us to feel. Don’t give up. We
owe it to these kids, the troops WE SUPPORT, to get them the hell outta there
and back home so they can help organize the drive to remove the war profiteers
from office next November.


To all who serve in our armed forces, to their parents and spouses and loved
ones, we offer to you the regrets of millions and the promise that we will right
this wrong and do whatever we can to thank you for offering to risk your lives
for us. That your life was put at risk for Bush’s greed is a disgrace and a
travesty, the likes of which I have not seen in my lifetime.


Please be safe, come home soon, and know that our thoughts and prayers are
with you during this season when many of us celebrate the birth of the prince of
“peace.”


Yours,


Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com 


 

Your Silence Is Appreciated

December 22, 2003 at 8:06 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

Here’s one last volley
for 2003. Dare I say, a year that will live in infamy. Let’s hope that the next
one brings an increasingly aware and politically motivated populace; a
resurgence of peace, justice, and truth; and above all, the replacement of our
country’s leadership with men and women who support the values of individual
working people over those of corporate raider barons. (Hey, we can always
hope.)


Here’s the first. For those of
us about to board flights during the holidays, just remember one
thing: your silence is not only
appreciated, it’s clearly the fastest way to get where you’re going. While this
is no longer the land of free speech, you’ll clam it if you know what’s good for
ya.

 

Coffee, Tea or Handcuffs?
  By Steven Mikulan

  LA Weekly

  Friday 19 December 2003


http://truthout.org/docs_03/122203E.shtml

 

Now,
just for fun, here’s your chance to try your hand at being an airport security
screener:

http://www.msnbc.com/modules/airport_security/screener/default.asp

 

Now,
does anybody else feel like boarding a train instead, with no hassles, no
luggage screens, no delays, and a comfortable seat? Yeah, you think it will take
you twice as long on a train? Did you take into account your 11 hour ordeal with
Homeland Security?



–C

White House Covers Tracks by Removing Information

December 18, 2003 at 3:38 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

This one pretty much speaks for itself. Forwarded for those of you who
haven’t elected to sign up for the Daily Mislead yourselves.

–C
—–Original Message—–
From: The Daily Mislead [mailto:latest@daily.misleader.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 12:49 PM
Subject: White House Covers Tracks by Removing Information

===============================
THE DAILY MIS-LEAD

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1307348&l=12634

===============================

WHITE HOUSE COVERS TRACKS BY REMOVING INFORMATION

In a high-tech cover-up, the Washington Post this morning reports the White
House is actively scrubbing government websites clean of any of its own
previous statements that have now proven to be untrue. Specifically, on
April 23, 2003, the president sent his top international aid official on
national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and
reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. USAID Director Andrew Natsios,
echoing other Administration officials, told Nightline that, "In terms of
the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The
American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any
further-on funding for this."

The president has requested more than $166 billion in funding for the war
and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. But instead of
admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president has
allowed the State Department "to purge the comments by Natsios from the
State Department’s Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have
vanished." (The link where the transcript existed until it caused
embarrassment was www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).

When confronted with the dishonest whitewash, the administration decided to
lie. A Bush spokesman said the administration was forced to remove the
statements because, "there was going to be a cost" charged by ABC for
keeping the transcript on the government’s site. But as the Post notes,
"other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments,
routinely post interview transcripts, even from ‘Nightline,’" and according
to ABC News, "there is no cost."

This story is not the first time the President has tried to hide critical
information from the American public. For instance, the president opposed
the creation of the independent 9/11 investigative commission, and has
refused to provide the commission with critical information, even under
threat of subpoena. Similarly, after making substantial budget cuts, the
president ordered the government to stop publishing its regular report
detailing those cuts to states. And when confronted with a continuing
unemployment crisis, the president ordered the Department of Labor to stop
publishing its regular mass layoff report.

It is also not the first time the administration has sought to revise
history and public records when those records become incriminating. As the
Post reports "After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than
expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of
President Bush’s May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations
in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word ‘Major’ before combat." And the
"Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a
consultant’s report that had been posted on its Web site."

Read the Mis-Lead –>

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1307348&l=12635

===========================================================

Subscribe to the Daily Mislead! Go to http://www.misleader.org and enter
your e-mail address in the "Receive the Daily Mislead" box in the
top-left corner of the page.

OPEC wants aid if world shifts to renewable energies

December 16, 2003 at 1:39 am
Contributed by:

Folks,


Can ya believe it? Just as the US digs in its feet again and refuses to participate with the rest of the world in controlling global warming, now “delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies like tidal, solar or wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.” Nice, huh? I guess you can’t blame them–they’ve got a serious cash flow problem and it won’t get any better until the price of oil goes up substantially. Still, the very idea that the public should pay off oil producing nations for not producing oil, well, that’s beyond the pale. Then again, that’s exactly what we do with farm subsidies, isn’t it?
OPEC wants aid if world shifts to renewable energies


Friday, December 12, 2003 Posted: 9:35 AM EST (1435 GMT)

Under the Cover of Darkness

December 15, 2003 at 1:42 pm
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

If you haven’t quite been able
to piece together the shenanigans that the House has been pulling in pushing
through its legislation, read this piece by U.S. Congressman
Sherrod Brown
. All of these major bills were pushed through after
midnight, on a Friday, in order to avoid the spotlight of the media. If this
isn’t an intentional subversion of the democratic process, I don’t know what is.
I hope conservative voters who have a conscience will help to vote these guys
out of office next time. No matter your party affiliation, how can anyone
support a representative who doesn’t have the guts to do his dirty work in the
light of day?
 

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/9587

Under The Cover Of
Darkness
 





U.S. Congressman Sherrod
Brown, a Democrat from Ohio, is the ranking member on the Committee on
Energy and the Commerce Subcommittee on
Health.

Editor’s Note: This column was
originally published in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and is reprinted with permission.


Never before has the House of
Representatives operated in such secrecy:

At 2:54 a.m. on a Friday in
March, the House cut veterans benefits by three votes.

At 2:39 a.m. on a
Friday in April, the House slashed education and health care by five votes.


At 1:56 a.m. on a Friday in May, the House passed the Leave No
Millionaire Behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

At 2:33 a.m. on a
Friday in June, the House passed the Medicare privatization and prescription
drug bill by one vote.

At 12:57 a.m. on a Friday in July, the House
eviscerated Head Start by one vote.

And then, after returning from
summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a Friday in October, the House voted $87 billion
for Iraq.

Always in the middle of the night. Always after the press had
passed their deadlines. Always after the American people had turned off the news
and gone to bed.

What did the public see? At best, Americans read a
small story with a brief explanation of the bill and the vote count in
Saturday’s papers.

But what did the public miss? They didn’t see the
House votes, which normally take no more than 20 minutes, dragging on for as
long as an hour as members of the Republican leadership trolled for enough votes
to cobble together a majority.

They didn’t see GOP leaders stalking the
floor for whoever was not in line. They didn’t see Speaker Dennis Hastert and
Majority Leader Tom DeLay coerce enough Republican members into switching their
votes to produce the desired result.

In other words, they didn’t see the
subversion of democracy.

And late last month, they did it again. The
most sweeping changes to Medicare in its 38-year history were forced through the
House at 5:55 on a Saturday morning.

The debate started at midnight. The
roll call began at 3:00 a.m. Most of us voted within the typical 20 minutes.
Normally, the speaker would have gaveled the vote closed. But not this time; the
Republican-driven bill was losing.

By 4 a.m., the bill had been defeated
216-218, with only one member, Democrat David Wu, not voting. Still, the speaker
refused to gavel the vote closed.

Then the assault began.


Hastert, DeLay, Republican Whip Roy Blount, Ways and Means Chairman Bill
Thomas, Energy and Commerce Chairman Billy Tauzin—all searched the floor for
stray Republicans to bully.

I watched them surround Cincinnati’s Steve
Chabot, trying first a carrot, then a stick; but he remained defiant. Next, they
aimed at retiring Michigan congressman Nick Smith, whose son is running to
succeed him. They promised support if he changed his vote to yes and threatened
his son’s future if he refused. He stood his ground.

Many of the two
dozen Republicans who voted against the bill had fled the floor. One Republican
hid in the Democratic cloakroom.

By 4:30, the browbeating had moved into
the Republican cloakroom, out of sight of C-SPAN cameras and the insomniac
public. Republican leaders woke President George W. Bush, and a White House aide
passed a cell phone from one recalcitrant member to another in the cloakroom.


At 5:55, two hours and 55 minutes after the roll call had begun—twice as
long as any previous vote in the history of the U.S. House of
Representatives—two obscure western Republicans emerged from the cloakroom. They
walked, ashen and cowed, down the aisle to the front of the chamber, scrawled
their names and district numbers on green cards to change their votes and
surrendered the cards to the clerk.

The speaker gaveled the vote closed;
Medicare privatization had passed.

You can do a lot in the middle of the
night, under the cover of darkness.


Click here to subscribe to our free
e-mail dispatch
and get the latest on what’s new at TomPaine.com before
everyone else! You can unsubscribe at any time and we will never distribute your
information to any other entity.





Published: Dec 11
2003

Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq Deals

December 11, 2003 at 8:19 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

 

In another stroke of diplomatic
genius, the Bush administration has simultaneously asked the leaders of France,
Germany and Russia to forgive Iraq’s debts, just a day after it announced that
it was excluding those countries and others from $18 billion in Iraqi
reconstruction projects. But, according to the DoD, “Nobody had the intent of
being punitive when this was being developed.” Riiight. Tell us another one!

 

As one alert reader quipped,
“Sounds like we’ve got a real consensus in Washington.” Yeah.

 

–C



http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/11/international/middleeast/11PREX.html?hp

 



The New York Times In America


December 11, 2003DIPLOMACY
Bush Seeks Help of Allies Barred From Iraq
DealsBy DAVID E. SANGER and DOUGLAS
JEHL



WASHINGTON, Dec. 10 — President Bush found himself in
the awkward position on Wednesday of calling the leaders of France,
Germany and Russia to ask them to forgive Iraq’s debts, just a day after
the Pentagon said it was excluding those countries and others from $18
billion in American-financed Iraqi reconstruction projects.


White House officials were fuming about the timing and the tone of the
Pentagon’s directive, even while conceding that they had approved the
Pentagon policy of limiting contracts to 63 countries that have given the
United States political or military aid in Iraq.


Many countries excluded from the list, including close allies like
Canada, reacted angrily on Wednesday to the Pentagon action. They were
incensed, in part, by the Pentagon’s explanation in a memorandum that the
restrictions were required “for the protection of the essential security
interests of the United States.”


The Russian defense minister, Sergei Ivanov, when asked about the
Pentagon decision, responded by ruling out any debt write-off for Iraq.


The Canadian deputy prime minister, John Manley, suggested crisply that
“it would be difficult” to add to the $190 million already given for
reconstruction in Iraq.


White House officials said Mr. Bush and his aides had been surprised by
both the timing and the blunt wording of the Pentagon’s declaration. But
they said the White House had signed off on the policy, after a committee
of deputies from a number of departments and the National Security Council
agreed that the most lucrative contracts must be reserved for political or
military supporters.


Those officials apparently did not realize that the memorandum, signed
by Paul D. Wolfowitz, deputy secretary of defense, would appear on a
Defense Department Web site hours before Mr. Bush was scheduled to ask
world leaders to receive James A. Baker III, the former treasury secretary
and secretary of state, who is heading up the effort to wipe out Iraq’s
debt. Mr. Baker met with the president on Wednesday.


Several of Mr. Bush’s aides said they feared that the memorandum would
undercut White House efforts to repair relations with allies who had
opposed the invasion of Iraq.


White House officials declined to say how Mr. Bush explained the
Pentagon policy to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, President
Jacques Chirac of France and Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of Germany.
France and Russia were two of the largest creditors of Saddam Hussein’s
government. But officials hinted, by the end of the day, that Mr. Baker
might be able to show flexibility to countries that write down Iraqi debt.


“I can’t imagine that if you are asking to do stuff for Iraq that this
is going to help,” a senior State Department official said late
Wednesday.


A senior administration official described Mr. Bush as “distinctly
unhappy” about dealing with foreign leaders who had just learned of their
exclusion from the contracts.


Under the Pentagon rules, only companies whose countries are on the
American list of “coalition nations” are eligible to compete for the prime
contracts, though they could act as subcontractors. The result is that the
Solomon Islands, Uganda and Samoa may compete for the contracts, but
China, whose premier just left the White House with promises of an
expanded trade relationship, is excluded, along with Israel.


Several of Mr. Bush’s aides wondered why the administration had not
simply adopted a policy of giving preference to prime contracts to members
of the coalition, without barring any countries outright.


“What we did was toss away our leverage,” one senior American diplomat
said. “We could have put together a policy that said, `The more you help,
the more contracts you may be able to gain.’ ” Instead, the official said,
“we found a new way to alienate them.”


A senior official at the State Department was asked during an internal
meeting on Wednesday how he expected the move to affect the responses of
Russia, France and Germany to the American request. He responded, “Go ask
Jim Baker,” according another senior official, who said of Mr. Baker,
“He’s the one who’s going to be carrying the water, and he’s going to be
the one who finds out.”


In public, however, the White House defended the approach. Scott
McClellan, the White House spokesman, said “the United States and
coalition countries, as well as others that are contributing forces to the
efforts there, and the Iraqi people themselves are the ones that have been
helping and sacrificing to build a free and prosperous nation for the
Iraqi people.”


He said contracts stemming from aid to Iraq pledged by donor nations in
Madrid last month would be open to broad international competition.


Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday that
while the bidding restriction applied to prime contracts, “there are very
few restrictions on subcontractors.”


He also said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund “may have
different, or their own, rules for how they contract.”


When the committee was drafting the policy, officials said, there was
some discussion about whether it would be wise to declare that excluding
noncoalition members was in the security interests of the United States.
As a matter of trade law, countries are often allowed to limit trade with
other nations on national security grounds.


“The intent was to give us the legal cover to make the decision,” one
official said.


But the phrase angered officials of other nations because it seemed to
suggest they were a security risk.


Moreover, the United States Trade Representative’s office said on
Wednesday that contracts with the occupation authority “are not covered by
international trade procurement obligations because the C.P.A. is not an
entity subject to these obligations.”


“Accordingly, there is no need to invoke the `essential security’
exception to our trade obligations,” the office added.


That raised the question of why Mr. Wolfowitz included the phrase.


The Pentagon was already recasting the policy on Wednesday.


“Nobody had the intent of being punitive when this was being
developed,” said Larry Di Rita, spokesman for Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld.


“This is not a fixed, closed list,” he said. “This is meant to be
forward looking and potentially expansive.”


 

Greg Palast – "Baker Takes the Loaf"

December 9, 2003 at 8:57 am
Contributed by:

Folks,

Here’s another blast from Palast, this time taking aim at James Baker and
his "restructuring" of Iraq’s finances. Boy, I wouldn’t want to be on the
business end of Palast’s pencil.

–C

—–Original Message—–
From: palast@gregpalast.com [mailto:palast@gregpalast.com]
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:11 PM
Subject: TomPaine.com: Baker Takes the Loaf

BAKER TAKES THE LOAF
The President’s Business Partner Slices Up Iraq
by Greg Palast
TomPaine.com
Monday, December 8, 2003

Well, ho ho ho! It’s an early Christmas for James Baker III.

All year the elves at his law firm, Baker Botts of Texas, have been working
day and night to prevent the families of the victims of the September 11
attack from seeking information from Saudi Arabia on the Kingdom’s funding
of Al Qaeda fronts.

It’s tough work, but this week came the payoff when President Bush appointed
Baker, the firm’s senior partner, to "restructure" the debts of the nation
of Iraq.

And who will net the big bucks under Jim Baker’s plan? Answer: his client,
Saudi Arabia, which claims $30.7 billion due from Iraq plus $12 billion in
reparations from the First Gulf war.

PUPPET STRINGS

Let’s ponder what’s going on here.

We are talking about something called "sovereign debt." And unless George
Bush has finally ‘fessed up and named himself Pasha of Iraq, he is not their
sovereign. Mr. Bush has no authority to seize control of that nation’s
assets nor its debts.

But our President is not going to let something as trivial as international
law stand in the way of a quick buck for Mr. Baker. To get around the wee
issue that Bush has no legal authority to mess with Iraq’s debt, the White
House has crafted a neat little subterfuge. The official press release says
the President has not appointed Mr. Baker. Rather Mr. Bush is "responding
to a request from the Iraqi Governing Council." That is, Bush is acting on
the authority of the puppet government he imposed on Iraqis at gunpoint.

I will grant the Iraqi ‘government’ has some knowledge of international
finance; its key member, Ahmed Chalabi, is a convicted bank swindler.

The Bush team must see the other advantage in having the rump rulers of Iraq
pretend to choose Mr. Baker; the US Senate will not have to review or
confirm the appointment. If you remember, Henry Kissinger ran away from the
September 11 commission with his consulting firm tucked between his legs
after the Senate demanded he reveal his client list. In the case of Jim
Baker, who will be acting as a de facto US Treasury secretary for
international affairs, our elected Congress will have no chance to ask him
who is paying his firm.… nor even require him to get off conflicting
payrolls.

This takes the Bush administration’ Conflicts-R-Us appointments process to a
new low.

Or maybe there’s no conflict at all. If you see Jim Baker’s new job as
working not to protect a new Iraqi democracy but to protect the loot of the
old theocracy of Saudi Arabia, the conflict disappears.

Iraq’s debt totals something on the order of $120 billion to $150 billion,
depending on who’s counting. And who’s counting is VERY important.

Much of the so-called debt to Saudi Arabia was given to Saddam Hussein to
fight a proxy war for the Saudis against their hated foe, the Shi’ia of
Iran. And as disclosed by a former Saudi diplomat, the kingdom’s sheiks
handed about $7 billion to Saddam under the table in the 1980’s to build an
"Islamic bomb."

Should Iraqis today and those not yet born have to be put in a debtor’s
prison to pay off the secret payouts to Saddam?

James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank, says ‘No!’ Wolfensohn has
never been on my Christmas card list, but in this case he’s got it right:
Iraq should simply cancel $120 billion in debt.

Normally, the World Bank is in charge of post-war debt restructuring.
That’s why the official name of the World Bank is "International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development." This is the Bank’s expertise. Bush has
rushed Baker in to pre-empt the debt write-off the World Bank would
certainly promote.

"I FIXED FLORIDA"

Why is our President so concerned with the wishes of Mr. Baker’s clientele?
What does Bush owe Baker? Let me count the ways, beginning with the 2000
election.

Just last week Baker said, "I fixed the election in Florida for George
Bush." That was the substance of his remarks last week to an audience of
Russian big wigs as reported to me by my somewhat astonished colleagues at
BBC television.

It was Baker, as consiglieri to the Bush family, who came up with the
strategy of maneuvering the 2000 Florida vote count into a Supreme Court
packed with politicos.

Baker’s claim to have fixed the election was not a confession; it was a
boast. He meant to dazzle current and potential clients about his Big In
with the Big Boy in the White House. Baker’s firm is already a top player
in the Great Game of seizing Caspian Sea oil. (An executive of Exxon-Mobil,
one of Baker Botts’s clients, has been charged with evading taxes on bribes
paid in Kazakhstan.)

ALL IN THE FAMILY

Over the years, Jim Baker has taken responsibility for putting bread on the
Bush family table. As Senior Counsel to Carlyle, the arms-dealing
investment group, Baker arranged for the firm to hire both President Bush 41
after he was booted from the White House and President Bush 43 while his
daddy was still in office.

Come to think of it, maybe I’m being a bit too dismissive of the Iraqi
make-believe government. After all, it’s not as if George Bush were elected
by voters either. It would be more accurate to say that TWO puppet
governments have agreed to let the man who has always pulled the strings
come out from behind the curtain, take a bow, take charge — then take the
money and run.

***
Hear Greg Palast, author of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, today on Amy
Goodman’s Democracy Now. And listen to "WEAPON OF MASS INSTRUCTION – PALAST
LIVE AND UNCENSORED," the CD from Alternative Tentacles, available this week
only at www.GregPalast.com.


Page 1 of 3123»


Copyright © 2008 GetRealList
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
FAIR USE NOTICE