Hannah's Blog

Out of the Woodwork

Casual readers probably concluded that George W. Bush's recent "failures" have prompted someone like Brent Scowcroft to speak up and show him where he's gone wrong. But, since the New Yorker interview with Scowcroft was most likely conducted some time ago, its publication now may be entirely co-incidental and actually indicates a dissatisfaction with how the current crew in the White House is managing the world that's been festering for some time.

Now, Melvin Laird is coming out with a very long piece in "Foreign Affairs" in which he explains that we got it all wrong about Vietnam and, of course, he's going to set us right by telling us that it was all about spreading democracy way back then and Richard Nixon was actually to blame because he failed to get the Congress to keep doling out the scheckles until the job was done.
So, it might seem fair to conclude that the people who have been in the bowels of the government all along, making policy while the politicians honored the dictum that "partisanship stops at the water's edge," have called for re-enforcements from the original architects of the notion that America is destined to rule the world. Regardless of whether the world wants to be ruled by America or the majority of Americans are inclined in that direction.

Until I learned that President Kennedy feared that he would be impeached, if he didn't demonstrate toughness vis a vis the Soviet Union, and then discovered that he had been double-crossed by the people whom he had charged with keeping the missiles out of Turkey and had to strike a secret deal with Khrushchev to get rid of the ones in Cuba, I never suspected that his peace initiatives may have prompted his assassination. Nor that Nixon's agreeing to remove American forces from Vietnam prompted his betrayal and being set up for removal by impeachment--no doubt a better alternative than the Kennedy solution.

When you consider how many peace-makers have been eliminated through assassination it's quite startling. There's a fellow, Lloyd deMause, who's got a theory that nut-cases are influenced by rumors of assassination
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/eln01_leader.html

Perhaps that's true for those who miss. The successes smack of expert organization which finds it convenient to set some nut-case up.
If Kennedy made a deal with Khrushchev and pledged to leave Cuba alone, what could have been Oswald's motivation?

************************************************************
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20051101faessay84604/melvin-r-laird/iraq-learning-the-lessons-of-vietnam.html

"having an abortion"--Updated

"Having an abortion" is wrong. Using this terminology to describe the premature evacuation or ejection of fetal tissue trivializes a gut-wrenching experience by comparing it to "having a manicure" or a "face lift" or even a "tummy tuck." While it would be more appropriate to classify "having an abortion" with "having a migraine headache," or even "having a heart attack," recognizing the seriousness of an event which is not only potentially fatal, but equally demanding of expert medical assistance, it's unlikely to silence the call for legislative regulation of this life-critical condition.

In part that's because passing laws to regulate situations over which the law has no control presents legislators with the opportunity to claim to exercise powers which have no practical significance.

Which is why I would suggest that any candidate for public office who answers the question "should abortion be made legal or illegal" with a "yes" or a "no" should be immediately disqualified from further consideration, not just by progressives, but by anyone who expects public officials to be honest.

But, there's another reason. Even though abortion, a natural spontaneous process, is outside the legislative purview, whether or not women are going to be provided with adequate and appropriate medical support for all aspects of the reproductive process, including the premature termination of a pregnancy by means of medical and/or surgical intervention, without interference by the judicial system, it is not only liable to legal restrictions, but the widespread propensity to impose such restriction jeopardizes the possibility of setting up a transportable, effective medical provider system (TEMPS) for the nation.

Even though an apparently large number of people (who reliably support Republican candidates) do not seem to mind having government officials stick their nose into their most intimate and private relationships, most people are reluctant to rely on government bureaucrats to determine which life-critical medical services and procedures they require. So, any effort to legislate the relationship between doctor and patient undermines our efforts to put a national health care system in place. Which is not to say that any medical or surgical intervention that isn't supported by the informed consent of the patient or his/her legal surrogates (in an emergency situation) should be exempt from legal review--a particularly important issue in regard to the providers of medical services to minors.

Particularly in reference to the latter, we have some specific experience to draw on as regards the provision of "mental health services" to minor children in the mid 1980s. At that time, because of an expansion of mental health coverage, including residential "treatment," both in private medical insurance contracts and the Medicaid program, there was a sudden surge in the building of juvenile mental health treatment facilities, the efficacy of whose services tended to be defined by when the insurance payment for "treatment" ran out. Since most of these programs seem to have little if any lasting benefit, except for relieving stressed out parents of the charge of recalcitranct adolescents for a while, the elimination of treatment programs designed by psychologists and social workers, should definitely be considered in setting up a medically based national life-care system.

In any event, it's going to be necessary to make some careful choices if we are going to achieve a transportable, efficient medical provider system (TEMPS). an important progressive goal. Arguing whether abortion should be legal or illegal will definitely keep us from getting there.
One hopes that Harriet Miers' failure to recognize that point signaled to everyone that she is not a fit candidate for the Supreme Court.

******
Halloween--
Now there's a new nominee, Sam Alito

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There are so many reasons not to waste a lot of time and energy on this nomination to the Supreme Court, I don't even know where to begin.

First, it has been and continues to be a mistake to try to affect the law by focusing on those who are supposed to interpret the law, rather than on those who make the law. Of course, the various legislative bodies, made up of people who prefer promoting the business deals of their cronies to actually doing the hard work of drafting legislation that serves the best interests of the whole society, rather than special interests, have been quite happy to pass sloppy legislation and "let the courts straighten it out."
Also, it's a lot easier to oppose one or two people nominated to be judges than to select, support and vote for a slate of competent representatives every two years--every year on the local level. It's also a lot easier to let business persons who run for local office to promote the interests of their "associates" than selecting people with a broader constituency for these entry-level positions. If we don't want business cronies running our towns and cities and if we don't want the local Chamber of Commerce staffing community committees, then we're going to have to step up to the plate and take an active part.
Also, Democrats have already wasted too much time and energy on a faux nomination, Harriet Miers, to let themselves be diverted from their real work for much longer. If the laws were well written and consistent with the Constitution, there would be almost nothing for the Supreme Court to do.
So, let's make the Supreme Court irrelevant.
Finally, anybody that promises anybody that abortion is going to be declared illegal and suggests that this is going to have any practical effect is either stupid or lying. They might just as well promise declaring defecation illegal. And that's the point we need to make. And then we have to follow up with the position that medical procedures should NEVER be a subject of legislation by anyone who's not trained in the profession.

This last is an important principle because until we get government out of the doctor/patient relationship we are never going to have an efficient, effective national health coverage program that's fully transportable. Even state efforts to regulate medical procedures through the legal system work against getting a comprehensive transportable program. Just imagine what would happen if you could get flu shots in Maine but not in Missouri. If the issue is presented in that way to the elderly, they'll get it.

U.S. needs to "project power"

"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the United States from projecting power in the region," said Dan Blumenthal, a former senior director for China and Taiwan in the US Secretary of Defense's office.

What's this "projecting power" thing all about?

I've given a lot of thought to this phrase since I fist heard it uttered by Donald Rumsfeld. How exactly does one project power and, more importantly, why on earth would one want to?

Since the quote I started out with comes from an analysis that identifies some nation's desire to refuse "access" to U.S. naval ships, planes and other military assets as a denial of something to which the U.S. is entitled, it would seem that "projecting power" simply refers to the ability of the American military to go wherever, whenever they want, making the concept of national sovereignty, like the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners, a quaint notion that no longer applies.

So, on its face, the concept seems rather simple. A couple of centuries ago I think it was referred to as "gun-boat diplomacy." Which suggests that it's perhaps not an appropriate strategy in the 21st Century. On the other hand, the proponents of this way of dealing with the world do refer to themselves as new conservatives--neocons.

Whether there has been any international consideration of this claim on the part of the American military to consider a closed door an actionable offense, I don't know. But, it does strike me as a peculiar position for a nation supposedly committed to national sovereignty, free market economics and the recognition of individual and human rights to take. I mean, how can you justify barging into someone's country when you claim to support homeland security.

In any event, it seems to me that there are only two logical explanations for our country assuming this position: the need to be able to project power as a primary national interest. Either the apparent need to rely on military force as a back-up to insure that other nations let our people and our corporations have free access to their resources and markets indicates a lack of confidence in the "free market" as the absolutely best economic system ever invented (easily recognizable as such by everyone who's introduced to it), or we have a large segment of the leadership of our nation severely addicted to "projecting power" for no practical purpose what-so-ever.

Now, there may well be a rational justification that I haven't been able to think of. If there is, I'd sure like to be informed what it is, because the ones I've been able to come up with so far strike me as piss-poor. Don't you agree.

Sitka's Fitzmas Present

The best one--so far.

http://www.hexadecimalx.com/video/noodles10.23.05.zip
http://www.thenoodles.us/

No Mistake

Enough already with calling Iraq a mistake
by Meteor Blades
Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 02:57:42 PM PDT

Someone said it again today. Invading Iraq was a mistake. Every time it gets said, I grind another layer of enamel off my teeth. Nancy Pelosi says it. John Kerry says it. Mikhail Gorbachev says it. Spain's Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero says it. Even the occasional Republican says it. And recent polls indicate 55% to 59% of Americans think it.

Every one of them is wrong. Invading Iraq was no mistake. It was bloody treason. And the traitors still rule us instead of breaking rocks at Leavenworth.

They knowingly, willingly, unhesitatingly pronounced what they knew to be lies and marginalized, denigrated and smeared contrary-minded people, manipulated real evidence, concocted fake evidence, tricked an American population traumatized, fearful and furious about terrorism and sent young men and women off to a war at the tip of a bayonet named "9/11."

A mistake is when you hammer your thumb instead of the nail. A mistake is when you choose c) instead of d) on the SAT. A mistake is when you put too much garlic in the minestrone. Invading Iraq was no damned mistake. And calling it a mistake is more than a mere slip of the tongue. It sets a precedent. Pretty soon, everybody will be saying invading Iraq was a mistake. And in 20 years, your grandkids will be studying out of textbooks that call it a mistake.

Instead of calling it what it really was. Sedition.

Over and over again for three years we've had our faces rubbed in the evidence. Yet, every day, someone calls this perfidious, murderous scheme a mistake. As if invading Iraq were a foreign policy mishap. Oopsy.

Stop it already. People do not commit treachery by mistake.

As we full well know, even before George W. Bush was scooted into office 5-to-4, the men he came to front for were already at work plotting their rationale for sinking deeper military and economic roots in the Middle East, petropolitics and neo-imperialist sophistry greedily intertwined. When they stepped into office, as Richard Clarke explained to us , terrorism gave them no worries. They blew off Clarke and they blew off Hart-Rudman with scarcely a fare-thee-well. Then, when they weren't figuring out how to lower taxes on their pals and unravel the tattered social safety net, they focused - as Paul O'Neill informed us - on finding the right excuse to persuade the American people to go to war with Saddam Hussein as a prelude to going to war with some of his neighbors. In less than nine months, that excuse dropped into their laps in the form of Osama bin Laden's kamikaze crews.

From that terrible day forward, Richard Cheney and his sidekick Donald Rumsfeld and their like-minded coterie of rogues engineered the invasion. They didn't slip the U.S. into Iraq by mistake. Like the shrewd opportunists they have shown themselves to be in the business world, they saw the chance to carry out their invasion plan and they moved every obstacle - most especially the truth - out of their way to make it happen.

When they couldn't get the CIA to give them the intelligence that would justify their moves they exerted pressure for a change of minds. They exaggerated, reinterpreted and rejiggered intelligence assessments. For icing they concocted their own.

Larry Wilkerson merely confirms what O'Neill and Clarke previously had told us: The traitors didn't mistakenly stumble their way into invasion pushed along by world events; they created a cabal of renegades specifically to carry out the Project for a New American Century's plans for hegemony, first stop - Baghdad. They didn't carefully weigh options and evaluate the pros and cons and make error in judgment, the kind of wrong choice that could happen to anyone. They studiously ignored everyone who warned them against taking the action they had decided upon years before the World Trade Centers were turned to ashes and dust.

The traitors ignored Brent Scowcroft when he wrote in August 2002, "Don't Attack Saddam". They ignored the Army War College when it warned of the perils of invasion and occupation in a February 2003 report, "Reconstructing Iraq: Insights, Challenges, And Missions For Military Forces In A Post-Conflict Scenario".

When their propaganda failed to measure up as a justification for expending American lives and treasure, they fabricated evidence. Aluminum tubes that experts said could in no way be used to help make nuclear weapons were turned into prima facie evidence of Saddam's intent to do so. Documents that intelligence veterans said from the get-go were forged remained the basis for the traitors' claims. With the straightest face he'd mustered since taking the oath of office, Dubyanocchio declared: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

If the ousted Colin Powell can be believed, they sandbagged him into publicly providing the United Nations with information the traitors knew to be false.

Senators and Congressmen were lied into granting the President authority to take military action to protect the United States from a threat that the traitors knew didn't exist.

When the weapons inspectors under Hans Blix couldn't find anything, but asked for more time to look, they brushed him off and began pounding Baghdad and other Iraqi targets with a display of raw power they labeled, like ad writers for some ultimate cologne, "Shock and Awe."

Every smidgen of this betrayal of the American people was purposely calculated, even if poorly planned and frequently incompetently handled. Just as invading Iraq was no mistake, the pretense that Bush hadn't made up his mind months before the invasion was no mistake. It was a calculated ploy to suggest falsely that the President and the ideological crocodiles in the White House gave two snaps about cooperating with the international community other than as a means to camouflage their unalterable determination to stomp Iraq, plundering it under the guise of righteous magnanimity.

Just as the war was no mistake, torturing prisoners was no mistake. It was a deliberate, premeditated policy of international outlawry and inhumanity guided by legal arguments requested and approved by the man who soon got his reward, appointment as attorney general, and carried out on the direct orders of men like General Geoffrey Miller at the "suggestion" of Don Rumsfeld and under the command George Walker Bush.

It was no mistake that the vice president's company collected billions in no-bid contracts and that the White House attempted to cover up massive over-charges by that company.

Just as planning for invasion, the concoction of evidence, the ignoring of counter-advice, and the lying to Congress, to the United Nations and to the American people were not mistakes, the outing of Valerie Plame Wilson was no slip of the tongue, but a conscious, purposeful and deliberate act. Nor did the traitors mistakenly smear Ambassador Joe Wilson - a smear which continues today. It was the intentional plot of men fearful of having their treacherous lies exposed.

Mistakes were definitely made. Three years ago, too many elected Democrats and too many other Americans believed the president and vice president of the United States to be honorable men. To be patriots. To have the best interests of Americans at heart. They believed them and they believed a megamedia that operated like government-owned megaphones instead of independent watch dogs. Those were gigantic mistakes.

I haven't told you a single thing you haven't heard dozens of times previously. And yet, every day, people who I am positive are as well or better acquainted than I with the facts I've outlined here say or write: "Invading Iraq was a mistake."

Nooooooooooo!

Our leaders betrayed us and aided our enemies. They worked overtime to silence dissident voices. They deliberately took us into war under a cloak of deceit and the outcome, so far, is tens of thousands of dead soldiers and civilians, a weakened national security, a diplomatic catastrophe, a sullied American voice, a dwindling treasury and increased terrorism, with no end in sight.

Stop calling what they did a mistake.

CANWFZ

Secretary Rumsfeld really has a nerve. He gets invited to visit a Chinese missile base and then he complains that his hosts aren't showing him enough and pretend to be spending less than they are. And he doesn't even mention one of the most important developments in that part of the globe, the Central Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ).

Perhaps it was just a matter of not being able to pronounce the new acronymn. More likely, Rumsfeld didn't want to talk about it because, together with Britain and France, he's already sent objections to the United Nations.

While it isn't necessary for the five Central Asian nations to get their treaty approved by the nuclear club, since Russia and China have already agreed that it's a good idea, it would be nice if the other nuclear powers endorsed it too.

But, the United States, the country most concerned about nuclear proliferation; the one that went to war on the mere suspicion that the people living in the deserts of Iraq might be hiding some weapons of mass destruction; the nation that agitates itself on a daily basis that Iran might accumulate enough enriched uranium to make itself a bomb (in maybe a decade), objects to five nations declaring that they want nothing to do with the stuff. What is Rumsfeld thinking?

Well, if the pattern runs true to form, then Rumsfeld's suspicions of China's bad faith and denigration of the Central Asian agreement is yet another example of ascribing one's own motives and behavior to others. In this case, Rumsfeld suspects the Chinese of hiding something, because that's what he's doing. Because, having gotten the UN inspectors and the IAEA to certify that Iraq is "clean" ("no WMD there" as Bush declared in his comedy act), the American Department of Defense is busily constructing missile bases in Iraq so "we can fight them over there and don't have to fight them over here."

But Bush was referring to terrorists, you object, not Russian and Chinese missiles. The missile defense shield we are building is going to protect us from those--the missile defense shield whose interceptor tests keep failing, falling short in the Pacific and whose precise location is never specified. Seems to me that if missiles are going to be intercepted, it would make sense to do it closer to where they take off, rather than where they are expected to land. Which may be why China repeated its commitment not to use nuclear missiles first--a subtle hint that whatever concerns are prompting the furious construction in Iraq, which China is surely able to detect, even if Syrian and Irania snooping is prevented from seeing it up close, is a lot of wasted effort.

Because, of course, once the bases and bunkers are ready to receive the nuclear weapons (flown in perhaps from Germany where they are no longer needed and wanted), China and Russia are going to object, just as the Soviet Union did when we planted missiles in Turkey and they had to send some over to Cuba to get US to take those out.

Maybe Rumsfeld thinks this time it will be different; that because Russia and China have put up with our nuclear missiles in Turkey (yes, they're back), Italy, Spain, Germany and Britain, having them in Iraq as well won't be a bother. Or maybe Rumsfeld thinks that once they are in, Russia and China would have to do something drastic to get them out and they've already promised not to use their missiles first--a similar promise on which the US has already renegged.

Anyway, with all these weighty issues on and under the table, the New York Times saw fit to report on Rumsfeld's whilrwind trip, in his high-tech command center jumbo jet by telling us about the Mongolian horse he couldn't bring back home.

*******
Short quiz:
What other nation on the face of the earth has it's weapons of mass destruction set up in other countries? None

What is the Pentagon building in Iraq with a construction budget that is twice as large for this year as for the previous four combined? Your guess is as good as mine. For certain they aren't building a hundred more temporary bases like those they already have.

Once China's oil pipeline from Venezuela to the Pacific is complete, what security measures will it have to take to keep it safe from "terrorist" attacks? Again, your guess is as good as mine.

********
US analysts, officials worry about China's military rise
`ANTI-ACCESS': Although US leaders may visit China, they are only allowed limited access, and are concerned that the US is clearly considered the hypothetical enemy

AFP , WASHINGTON
Sunday, Oct 23, 2005,Page 5

"You have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what it's actually doing."

China is doing little to ease concerns over its rapid military buildup which is threatening US dominance in a wide range of areas, from Asian sea lanes to outer space, US experts said on Friday.

US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on a maiden trip this week to Beijing to directly express US worries over China's growing military power, but the experts felt the assurances he received had failed to lift long-held suspicions.

While Chinese leaders allowed an unprecedented visit for Rumsfeld to the Strategic Rocket Forces headquarters in Beijing, he was not be allowed into the national military command center, the Chinese version of the Pentagon.

"The Chinese in their own context made a small step forward, but in reality there is no indication they are ready to embark on a new era of military transparency in the American or European sense," said Richard Fisher of the US-based International Assessment and Strategy Center.

"Not only can Chinese nuclear missiles now target the continental United States, the whole configuration of the new Chinese force is clearly designed with the United States as the hypothetical enemy," Fisher said.

Randall Schriver, a senior State Department official who was in charge of East Asian policy until early this year, said that "the core issue of our concerns over China's military buildup and its transparency remains unresolved," despite Rumsfeld's rare trip.

While the US defense chief has maintained Beijing's military expenditure was two to three times greater than publicly acknowledged, his Chinese counterpart, Cao Guangchuan, (???) denied any understatement of military spending.

Specific concerns about the lack of transparency in China's military budget and capability were also not addressed, including the deployment of medium- and short-range missiles that can hit US airbases.

Some experts believe China will develop a world-class defense industry within the next 10 to 15 years and seeks to replace the US as the preeminent power in the Pacific -- even globally. By some estimates, China now has the world's third-largest defense budget, after the US and Russia, spending from US$70 billion to US$90 billion per year. But China says defense spending would be just US$30 billion this year.

"I think it was good for the Chinese to hear directly from the secretary of defense as he actually in many ways was speaking for more than the United States," said Peter Brookes, a former US deputy assistant secretary of defense.

"There are concerns about the transparency of China's military budget and its growth from others in the region who are nervous as well, including Japan, Taiwan and even Southeast Asia, but reluctant to speak up about it," he said.

China argues its military budget is dwarfed by US spending, which last year totaled US$440 billion, and that its preoccupation is to lift living standards of the poor.

"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the United States from projecting power in the region," said Dan Blumenthal, a former senior director for China and Taiwan in the US Secretary of Defense's office.

"So you have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what it is actually doing," he said.

One area of concern that has given the US sleepless nights is what Blumenthal calls China's anti-access capabilities.

"China is developing military capabilities that make it much more difficult for the United States to access hot spots in the region and, therefore, to meet its various defense commitments which have underguarded security order in the region for half a century," he said.

Beijing has deployed various classes of destroyers with cruise missiles that can fire upon US carrier battle groups, "which is a matter of great concern," he said.

In addition, Blumenthal said, China's deployment of diesel submarines made it "much more difficult and complicated for US carrier battle groups to get into areas that they need to get into."

China is also accused of using its manned space program to achieve its military ambitions.

"Every mission performed either electronic or military surveillance for the PLA [People's Liberation Army] but China is loathe to admit, from the very inception, that its manned space program has directly served military purposes," Fisher said.

Brookes said that the US' immediate concern is that China will try to use its new military might on Taiwan to effect unification. Also, China has as many as 750 ballistic missiles aimed at Taiwan, according to the Pentagon. Many of them are reportedly also capable of striking US forces stationed in Japan.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/23/2003276996

Fitzmas is Coming

It's beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas. Indictments are coming and the truth will be known.

Leahy Tells the Truth

But not all of it. That the U.S. is constructing military bases in Iraq from which to target Russia and China and India and whoever else seeks to "deny the United States from projecting power in the region" is still classified information which even Senators are reluctant to reveal on the floor of the Senate.

Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
The War In Iraq
Senate Floor
October 25, 2005

[Following is Sen. Patrick Leahy?s address on Iraq, delivered Tuesday morning on the Senate Floor. Leahy (D-Vt.) is the ranking member of the Appropriations panel that handles the Senate?s work in funding the State Department and U.S. foreign operations and aid, and he also is a senior member of the Appropriations panel with jurisdiction over the annual defense budget bill. Leahy was one of 23 senators who voted against the resolution that authorized the invasion of Iraq.]

MR. LEAHY. Three years ago when the Congress and the country debated the resolution to give President Bush the authority to launch a preemptive war against Iraq, reference was often made to the lessons of Vietnam.

Unheeded Lessons

There are many lessons, both of that war and of the efforts to end it. But one that made a deep impression on me came from former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, the architect of that war, who said our greatest mistake was not understanding our enemy.

Vietnam was a relatively simple country that had changed little in the preceding 3,000 years. It was, for the most part, racially, ethnically, linguistically and religiously homogenous. One would have thought it would have been easy for U.S. military and political leaders to understand.

Apparently it was not. The White House and the Pentagon, convinced that no country, particularly not a tiny impoverished land of rice farmers, could withstand the military might of the United States, never bothered to study and understand the history or culture of Vietnam, and they made tragic miscalculations. They lacked the most basic knowledge of the motivation, the capabilities and the resolve of the people they were fighting.

At the start of the Iraq war, those who drew some analogies to Vietnam were ridiculed by the Pentagon and the White House. Iraq is not Vietnam, they insisted. Our troops would be greeted as liberators. Troop strength was not a concern. Our mission would be quickly accomplished. Democracy would spread throughout the Middle East. Freedom was on the march.

It is true that Vietnam and Iraq are vastly different societies. But the point was not that they are similar, but that some of the same lessons apply. We did not understand Vietnam -- a simple country -- and we paid a huge price for our ignorance and our arrogance.

Iraq -- a complex country comprised of rival clans, tribes and ethic and religious factions who have fought each other for centuries -- we understand even less.

If this were not apparent to many at the start of this ill-conceived and politically motivated war -- a war I opposed from the beginning -- it should be obvious today. Yet to listen to the Secretary of Defense, or to the President or the Vice President, one would never know it.

Misled Into War

We know today that President Bush decided to invade Iraq without evidence to support the use of force and well before Congress passed the resolution giving him the authority to do so -- authority he did not even believe he needed -- despite the Constitution which invests in the Congress the power to declare war. Twenty-three Senators voted against that resolution, and I was proud to be one of them.

We know today that the motivation for a plan to attack Iraq, hatched by a handful of political operatives, had taken hold within the White House even before 9/11, and without any connection to the war on terrorism that came later.

We know that the key public justifications for the war -- to stop Saddam Hussein from developing nuclear weapons and supporting al Qaeda -- were based on faulty intelligence and outright distortions and have been thoroughly discredited. United Nations weapons inspectors, who were dismissed by the White House as naïve and ineffective, turned out to have gathered far better information with a tiny fraction of the budget than our own intelligence agencies.

And we know that the insurgency is continuing to grow along with American casualties -- 1,999 killed and at least 15,220 wounded, as of yesterday -- despite the same old light at the end of the tunnel assertions and clichés by the White House and top officials in the Pentagon.

The sad but inescapable truth, which the President either does not see or refuses to believe or admit, is that the Iraqi insurgency has steadily grown, in part because of our presence there.

?Bring Them On?

After baiting the insurgents to ?bring them on,? we got what the President asked for. More than two years later, the pendulum swung against us, and the question is no longer whether we can stop the insurgency, but how to extricate ourselves.

According to soldiers who volunteered for duty in Iraq believing in the mission and who have returned home, many Iraqis who detest the barbaric tactics of the insurgents have grown to despise us. They blame us for the lack of water and electricity, for the lack of jobs and health care, for the hardships and violence they are suffering day in and day out.

Unlike our troops and their families who make great sacrifices, most Americans have been asked to sacrifice nothing for this war. The bills are being sent to our children and grandchildren, by way of our rapidly escalating national debt and annual deficits. Yet as the hundreds of billions dollars to pay for the war continue to pile up and domestic programs like Medicaid, job training and programs for needy students are cut, the sacrifices will be felt today as well.

Slogans have become little more than political rallying cries for the White House. Slogans as empty and unfulfilled as ?mission accomplished.? Our troops were sent to fight an unnecessary war without sufficient armor against these ruthless and barbaric bombing attacks, without adequate reinforcements, without a plan to win the peace, and without adequate medical care and other services when they return home on stretchers or crutches or with eye patches, unable to walk, to work, to pay their mortgages, or to support their families.

Many of our veterans have been treated shamefully by their government when it sent them into harm?s way under false pretences, and again after they returned home.

Today I worry about places like Ramadi, where more than 300 members of the Army National Guard from my State of Vermont are currently serving valiantly alongside their comrades in the Marine Corps and the Pennsylvania National Guard. Dozens of other citizen-soldiers from the Vermont Guard are serving across Iraq, while hundreds are deployed throughout the Persian Gulf region.

Many Vermonters have been killed in Ramadi and elsewhere by roadside bombs and all-too accurate sniper attacks.

The insurgents too often seem to attack and then escape with impunity. You can open a newspaper and see photos of armed insurgents walking the streets in broad daylight. Many of these cold-blooded attacks are by people who are willing to trade their own lives to kill civilians, security guards, and our soldiers who have no way of knowing who they can trust among the general population.

?More Of The Same? Is Not Working

The President has no plan to deal with Ramadi, let alone the rest of Iraq, except doing more of what we have been doing for more than two years, at a cost of $5 billion a month -- money we do not have and that future generations of Americans will have to repay. Nor has he proposed a practical alternative to our wasteful energy policy that guarantees our continued dependence on Persian Gulf oil for decades to come.

I am sure that what our military is doing to train the Iraqi Army and what our billions of dollars are doing to help rebuild Iraq -- whatever is not stolen or wasted by profiteering contractors -- are making a difference. Iraq is no longer governed by a corrupt, ruthless dictator, and there have been halting but important steps toward representative government.

I applaud the Iraqis who courageously stood in long lines and cast their ballots for a new constitution, despite the insurgents? threats. There are many profiles in courage among the Iraqi people, just as there are in the heroic daily endeavors of U.S. soldiers there.

But this progress masks deeper troubles and may be short lived, threatened by a widening insurgency and a divisive political process that is increasingly seen as leading to a Shiite dominated theocracy governed by Islamic law and aligned with Iran, or the dissolution of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite states.

Escalating Toll, Escalating Costs

Mr. President, this war has been a costly disaster for our country. More than half of the American people now say they have lost confidence in the President?s handling of it.

Far from making us safer from terrorists, in fact it has turned Iraq into a haven and recruiting ground for terrorists and deflected our attention and resources away from the fight against terrorism. If anything, it has emboldened our enemies, as it has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency.

Regrettably, it is no longer a secret how vulnerable we are, and Hurricane Katrina showed how tragically unprepared we are to respond to a major disaster -- four years after 9/11 and after wasting billions on an unnecessary war.

Our cities are little further than the drawing board when it comes to developing workable evacuation plans for a terrorist attack or other emergency, not to mention how to feed, house and provide for millions of displaced people.

This war has caused immense damage to our relations with the world?s Muslims, a religion practiced by some 1.2 billion people and about which most Americans know virtually nothing. We cannot possibly mount an effective campaign against terrorism without the trust, the respect and the active support of Muslims, particularly in the Middle East where our image has been so badly damaged. Our weakened international reputation is another heavy price that our country has paid for this war.

Each day, as more and more Iraqi civilians, often children, lose their lives and limbs from suicide bombers and also from our bombs, the resentment and anger toward us intensifies.

And every week, the number of U.S. service men and women who are killed or wounded creeps higher, will soon pass 2000, and shows no sign of diminishing.

This war has isolated us from our allies, most of whom want no part of it, and if we continue on the course the President has set it could also divide our country.

Course Correction

Other Senators and Representatives, Republicans and Democrats, have expressed frustration and alarm with the President?s failure to acknowledge that this war has been a costly mistake, that more of the same is not a workable policy, and that we need to change course. My friend Senator Hagel, a Vietnam veteran, has pointed out the increasing similarities with Vietnam. We learned this week that the Administration has even resumed the discredited Vietnam-era practice of measuring progress by reporting body counts.

White House and Pentagon officials, and their staunchest supporters in Congress, warn of a wider civil war if we pull our troops out. They could be right. In fact, it could be the first thing they are right about since the beginning of this reckless adventure.

My question to them is, when and how then do we extract ourselves from this mess? What does the President believe needs to happen before our troops can come home, and what is his plan for getting to that point?

If we cannot overcome the insurgency, what can we realistically expect to accomplish in Iraq, and at what cost, that requires the continued deployment of our troops?

What is it that compels us to spend billions of dollars to rebuild the Iraqi military, when our own National Guard is stretched to the breaking point and can?t even get the equipment it needs?

Unfortunately I doubt that the President or the Secretary of Defense will answer these questions. Instead of answers, we get rhetoric that conflicts with just about everything we hear or read, including from some of this country?s most distinguished retired military officers who served under both Republican and Democratic presidents.

Six months ago the Vice President said the insurgency was in its last throes. That was just the latest in a long string of grossly inaccurate statements and predictions and false expectations about Iraq.

Secretary Rice, when asked recently when U.S. forces could begin to come home assuming the Administration?s rosy predictions come true, could not, or would not, even venture a guess.

Without answers -- real answers, honest answers -- to these questions, I will not support the open-ended deployment of our troops in a war that was based on falsehoods and justified with hubris.

Even though I opposed this war, I have prayed, like other Americans, that it would weaken the threat of terrorism and make the world safer, that our troops? sacrifices would prove to have been justified and that the President had a plan for completing the mission.

Instead, it has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists, it is fueling the insurgency, it is causing severe damage to the reputation and readiness of the U.S. military, and it is preventing us from addressing the inexcusable weaknesses in our homeland security.

The Iraqi people, at least the Shiites and Kurds, have voted for a new constitution, as hastily drafted, flawed and potentially divisive as it may be.

Saddam Hussein, whose capacity for cruelty was seemingly limitless, is finally facing trial for his heinous crimes.

And elections for a new national government are due by the end of the year.

By then, it will be more than two and a half years since Saddam?s overthrow, and we will have given the Iraqi people a chance to chart their own course. The sooner we reduce our presence there, the sooner they will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve their own problems.

Our military commanders say that Iraq?s problems increasingly need to be solved through the political process, not through military force. We must show Iraq and the world that we are not an occupying force, and that we have no designs on their country or their oil. The American people need to know that the President has a plan that will bring our troops home.

Once a new Iraqi government is in place, I believe the President should consult with Congress on a flexible plan that includes pulling our troops back from the densely populated areas where they are suffering the worst casualties and to bring them home. Those consultations should begin in earnest as soon as Iraq?s new government is in place.

It is also long overdue for the White House and the Congress to reassess our policy towards the region. The President has declared that democracy is taking root throughout the Middle East, and there have been small, positive steps. But they are dwarfed by the ongoing threat posed by Iran, Syria?s continued meddling in Iraq and Lebanon, repression and corruption in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the danger that the momentum for peace from Israel?s withdrawal from Gaza will be lost as settlement construction accelerates in the West Bank, and the widespread -- albeit mistaken -- belief among Muslims that the United States wants to destroy Islam itself.

Just as the White House?s obsession with Iraq has diverted our resources and impeded our efforts to strengthen our defenses against terrorism at home, so has it made it more difficult to work constructively with our allies to address these regional threats.

Mr. President, as I have said, I did not support this war, and I believe that history will not judge kindly those who got us into this debacle by attacking a country that did not threaten us, after deceiving the American people and ridiculing those who appealed for caution and for instead mobilizing our resources directly against the threat of terrorism.

I worry that many of our young veterans -- nearly one million so far -- who have gone to Iraq and experienced the brutality and trauma of war and who may already feel guilty for having survived, will increasingly question its purpose. As the architects of this war move on to other jobs, fear that we are going to see another generation of veterans, many of them physically and psychologically scarred for life, who feel a deep sense of betrayal by their government.

Mounting Trade-Offs

If President Bush will not say what remains to be done before he can declare victory and bring our troops home, then the Congress should start voting on what this war is really costing this Nation.

We should vote on paying for the war versus cutting Medicaid, as some of those across the aisle are proposing.

Or versus cutting VA programs that are already unable to pay the staggering costs of treatment and rehabilitation for our injured veterans.

Or versus rebuilding our National Guard.

Or rebuilding FEMA.

Or securing our ports and our borders.

Or investing in our intelligence so we can finally capture Osama bin Laden.

Or investing in health care for the tens of millions of Americans who can not afford to get sick.

Or fixing our troubled schools, so our children can learn to do a better job than we have of making the world a safer place for all people.

Mr. President, these, and the tarnished reputation of a country that so many once admired as not only powerful but also good and just, are the real costs of this war.

# # # # #

What's a Gov'mint For?

There are some people (I think they are born that way) whose main delight comes from manipulating other people. If people were made of clay or some other inert substance, it wouldn't matter. But since people are living, breathing, moving creatures with their own agenda of things to do and places to go, efforts to manipulate them, even if the effort to direct them is for their own good, are almost certain to generate resistance.

In addition, the nature of manipulation is such that to be really evident, the effect of the manipulation has to hurt, or at least discomfit, the victim. Which is why, at the point where manipulation meets resistance, the lie is born. Indeed, even when the manipulation is for the victims own good ("this won't hurt" says the nurse, as she sticks the needle in), deception is an integral part. Without the lie, manipulation is not likely to get far.

Now the manipulator faces a bit of a quandry. Why does behavior which brings such delight require more or less deception? In other words, why does something that feels so good have to involve perverting the truth--i.e. doing something bad?

Over the centuries, at least in the so-called Western Civilizations, this quandry has generated a multitude of explanations and justifications. Some have dealt with the intent of the manipulator, his peculiar need that others seem not to share, leading to the conclusion that deception on behalf of a good cause is not bad. Others have dealt with the victim's attitude, the failure to offer strenuous resistance to the manipulation, or any resistance at all, leading to the conclusion that the manipulation is either deserved or not particularly hurtful, after all. Or, perhaps, the victim is just insensitive and, like the other dumb creatures on the planet, made to be manipulated by those who know better how creatures ought to behave. In that case, of course, it easy to argue that manipulation, regardless of whether it needs to be disguised with a lie, is actually good.

Then, once you accept the argument that some people deserve to be manipulated because they are either too stupid to notice or too lazy to care, it's easy to take the next step and conclude that those who know better actually have an obligation to provide direction and govern the rest. Indeed, the absence of adequate resistance, the normal response to manipulation, can be interpreted as an indication that the subject population, in addition to or because of their stupidity and indolence, are actually bad. In which case, any effort to correct them is not just good, but a virtue.

Leaving the accuracy of this conclusion aside for a moment, let me turn to another most certainly in-born characteristic of almost all people--the inclination to socialize and arrange themselves in mutually supportive groups. Though there are some people who argue that social organization among humans is something that either has to be imposed from outside or results from a common response to the perception of danger (behavior that's been documented in the wild among our close cousins), I'm convinced that just as some people are born to manipulate, almost all of them, even those lacking some of the essential senses, are born to participate in a larger group.

Whether or not people forming themselves into groups is an in-born trait is only significant in relation to the interaction between groups and individuals who are born to manipulate. If manipulating one person is attractive to the latter, the prospect of manipulating a group of a dozen, or a hundred, or even a million is positively irresistable. And the rationalization that any large group "needs" to be governed follows almost automatically.

But, since in any large group there are bound to be some people who react poorly to being injured or restrained, being endowed, perhaps, with a keener sense of self-preservation and self-direction than the rest, resistance, which would be considered normal behavior in an individual, is not only magnified by its presence in a group (even if not all participate) but presents as a positive menace to the inclination to manipulate and govern.

At the least, when resistance is a component of a group, it's unlikely that deception will suffice to maintain the manipulator's control. When manipulation meets the resistance of a group, there are only two outs. Either the manipulator gives up the game and looks for another target, or he resorts to the use of force. And the problem using force is that it not only generates resistance much more surely and quickly, but ultimate force is self-defeating, dead people being beyond manipulation.

Whether or not manipulating other people is inherently good or bad, it's something that people do. And, although the consequences for the victim are often injurious, that's not necessarily so. The people who delight in manipulating others do have other choices. They can target other people who actually like it, have thick skins and/or are able to induce them to take turns. After all, that's what wrestling is all about, isn't it.

On the other hand, it wouldn't be necessarily to go through all these mental gyrations to justify behavior with false assumptions, if the manipulators were to redirect their attention from other people to the physical environment and come to realize that what humans form themselves up into groups for in the first place is to confront the forces of nature, which they can't control or manipulate as individuals for their own benefit or that of the group. In other words, if resistance and human conflict is to be avoided, then the manipulators need to accept that it's the environment that needs to be manipulated and governed, not other people.

But, that's hard work and "you can't fool mother nature." Which raises the question: who's really been lazy and stupid?

Hannah News

For the last two nights now I've dreamt about pushing my mother around some strange environments in a wheel-chair. Most interesting was some sort of medical/educational campus with lots of walk-ways and easy steps that a wheel-chair could actually be rolled up.

In one dream she had a little lap dog that we took along. Sort of like Toto in the school-teacher's basket in the Wizzard of Oz. In another, I parked her in the midst of a bunch of seniors taking an art class and went off on a stroll by myself. Almost forgot to retrieve her. When I brought the wheel-chair back, she hugged it and kissed it--which was actually preferable to her doing that to me.

I think that behavior with the chair represents her gradually coming to an appreciation that she's actually well cared for--a novel awareness, since she perceived herself to have been abused most of her life.

Otherwise these dreams are a little peculiar because we haven't actually taken her out in the wheel-chair for over a month and not much before that.
In fact, since she's spent most of her time in bed the last month, we've been working on doing a little more walking every day, just to keep her muscles in shape. There doesn't seem to be any real physical impediment.
So, I'm thinking that prior infirmities were largely an act that had been well practiced for many years.

How else to explain the sudden disappearance of all aches and pains?

*****

Should probably note that waiting for Fitzmas is proving rather nerve-wracking. Watergate was easier because we had no idea what to expect. This time we have all kinds of expectations about what SHOULD happen, but too much experience to believe that it really will.

Besides, the architects of the debacle in our democracy have been working at it for decades and their supporters are multitudinous. Exposing the whole of their nefarious schemes to transform America into a world empire, not just primus inter pares, is a big order and will take a lot of time.

**********

Meanwhile, it keeps raining and our fields still haven't been cut.

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

October 24--For the last two days the Omi has been back to setting her own schedule. Getting up and going to the bathroom and then getting back in bed when she's had enough. Tomorrow she plans to debone the dog's chicken. Today she gave herself a manicure.
And she's talking. Doesn't comprehend as well as the dog, but better.

Target China

"underguarded security order in the region for half a century"

Surely that's a slip of the tongue, but accurate. Secretary Rumsfeld's under-reported trip to China while the American media are fixated on bird flu and the weather reminds be of Rumsfeld's over-reported trip to Abu Ghraib while Wolfowitz went before Congress making the case for new classes of nuclear weapons to keep our allies and enemies from hiding things in their mountains. One would think that even the Swiss would object to that.

Target China

Secretary Donald Rumsfeld paid a historic visit to China last week, his first since he was President Ford's Chief of Staff.

But, while the Chinese graciously let him visit a nuclear missile base, Mr. Rumsfeld was not impressed and his minions have gone to some length to make the point that the "inscrutible orientals" still lag in the modern virtue, transparency.

Also, even though a five-nation agreement has been endorsed by both Russia and China to make Central Asia a Nuclear-Free Zone, it was not discussed. That's because the U.S., Britain and France have already decided to oppose this ground-breaking agreement.
An analysis in the Taipei Times provides a number of "reasons" for U.S. suspicions:

>`ANTI-ACCESS': Although US leaders may visit China, they are only allowed >limited access, and are concerned that the US is clearly considered the >hypothetical enemy

>AFP , WASHINGTON
>Sunday, Oct 23, 2005,Page 5

>"You have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what it's >actually doing."

>China is doing little to ease concerns over its rapid military buildup which >is threatening US dominance in a wide range of areas, from Asian sea >lanes to outer space, US experts said on Friday.

>US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld went on a maiden trip this week >to Beijing to directly express US worries over China's growing military >power, but the experts felt the assurances he received had failed to lift >long-held suspicions.

While an objective observer might conclude that being surrounded by U.S. military forces stationed in South Korea, Japan, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Turkey might give China a reason to protect itself, that's not OK with the U.S.

You see, we've got this new principle: To deny the U.S. unfettered access wherever it wants to go is considered an offense.

>China argues its military budget is dwarfed by US spending, which last >year totaled US$440 billion, and that its preoccupation is to lift living >standards of the poor.

>"But what you are seeing are capabilities to, in fact, deny the United States >from projecting power in the region," said Dan Blumenthal, a former senior >director for China and Taiwan in the US Secretary of Defense's office.

>"So you have this disconnect between what China says it's doing and what >it is actually doing," he said.

>One area of concern that has given the US sleepless nights is what >Blumenthal calls China's anti-access capabilities.

>"China is developing military capabilities that make it much more difficult >for the United States to access hot spots in the region and, therefore, to >meet its various defense commitments which have underguarded security >order in the region for half a century," he said.

Think of that. Of course, a nation in which a man's home is no longer his castle, can't be expected to respect the borders and territorial waters of other nations either.

But, when was all this decided?

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2005/10/23/2003276996

Money for Nothing

Howard Dean has been talking about the culture of corruption. Probably he has no idea how right he is.
Just in case anybody's confused about what corruption means in the political arena, it's basically getting money for services that aren't delivered or, if we're lucky, people getting paid twice for the same service--i.e. accepting bribes.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_10_24/cover.html

Money for Nothing

Billions of dollars have disappeared, gone to bribe Iraqis and line contractors? pockets.

by Philip Giraldi

The United States invaded Iraq with a high-minded mission: destroy dangerous weapons, bring democracy, and trigger a wave of reform across the Middle East. None of these have happened.

When the final page is written on America?s catastrophic imperial venture, one word will dominate the explanation of U.S. failure?corruption. Large-scale and pervasive corruption meant that available resources could not be used to stabilize and secure Iraq in the early days of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), when it was still possible to do so. Continuing corruption meant that the reconstruction of infrastructure never got underway, giving the Iraqi people little incentive to co-operate with the occupation. Ongoing corruption in arms procurement and defense spending means that Baghdad will never control a viable army while the Shi?ite and Kurdish militias will grow stronger and produce a divided Iraq in which constitutional guarantees will be irrelevant.

The American-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority could well prove to be the most corrupt administration in history, almost certainly surpassing the widespread fraud of the much-maligned UN Oil for Food Program. At least $20 billion that belonged to the Iraqi people has been wasted, together with hundreds of millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Exactly how many billions of additional dollars were squandered, stolen, given away, or simply lost will never be known because the deliberate decision by the CPA not to meter oil exports means that no one will ever know how much revenue was generated during 2003 and 2004.

Some of the corruption grew out of the misguided neoconservative agenda for Iraq, which meant that a serious reconstruction effort came second to doling out the spoils to the war?s most fervent supporters. The CPA brought in scores of bright, young true believers who were nearly universally unqualified. Many were recruited through the Heritage Foundation website, where they had posted their résumés. They were paid six-figure salaries out of Iraqi funds, and most served in 90-day rotations before returning home with their war stories. One such volunteer was Simone Ledeen, daughter of leading neoconservative Michael Ledeen. Unable to communicate in Arabic and with no relevant experience or appropriate educational training, she nevertheless became a senior advisor for northern Iraq at the Ministry of Finance in Baghdad. Another was former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer?s older brother Michael who, though utterly unqualified, was named director of private-sector development for all of Iraq.

The 15-month proconsulship of the CPA disbursed nearly $20 billion, two-thirds of it in cash, most of which came from the Development Fund for Iraq that had replaced the UN Oil for Food Program and from frozen and seized Iraqi assets. Most of the money was flown into Iraq on C-130s in huge plastic shrink-wrapped pallets holding 40 ?cashpaks,? each cashpak having $1.6 million in $100 bills. Twelve billion dollars moved that way between May 2003 and June 2004, drawn from accounts administered by the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The $100 bills weighed an estimated 363 tons.

Once in Iraq, there was virtually no accountability over how the money was spent. There was also considerable money ?off the books,? including as much as $4 billion from illegal oil exports. The CPA and the Iraqi State Oil Marketing Board, which it controlled, made a deliberate decision not to record or ?meter? oil exports, an invitation to wholesale fraud and black marketeering.

Thus the country was awash in unaccountable money. British sources report that the CPA contracts that were not handed out to cronies were sold to the highest bidder, with bribes as high as $300,000 being demanded for particularly lucrative reconstruction contracts.

The contracts were especially attractive because no work or results were necessarily expected in return. It became popular to cancel contracts without penalty, claiming that security costs were making it too difficult to do the work. A $500 million power-plant contract was reportedly awarded to a bidder based on a proposal one page long. After a joint commission rejected the proposal, its members were replaced by the minister, and approval was duly obtained. But no plant has been built.

Where contracts are actually performed, their nominal cost is inflated sufficiently to provide handsome bribes for everyone involved in the process. Bribes paid to government ministers reportedly exceed $10 million.

Money also disappeared in truckloads and by helicopter. The CPA reportedly distributed funds to contractors in bags off the back of a truck. In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier?s name or provide a good description of him.

Paul Bremer, meanwhile, had a slush fund in cash of more than $600 million in his office for which there was no paperwork. One U.S. contractor received $2 million in a duffel bag. Three-quarters of a million dollars was stolen from an office safe, and a U.S. official was given $7 million in cash in the waning days of the CPA and told to spend it ?before the Iraqis take over.? Nearly $5 billion was shipped from New York in the last month of the CPA. Sources suggest that a deliberate attempt was being made to run down the balance and spend the money while the CPA still had authority and before an Iraqi government could be formed.

The only certified public-accounting firm used by the CPA to monitor its spending was a company called North Star Consultants, located in San Diego, which was so small that it operated out of a private home. It was subsequently determined that North Star did not, in fact, perform any review of the CPA?s internal spending controls. Today, no one can account for billions of those dollars or even suggest how the money was spent. And as the CPA no longer exists, there is also little interest in re-examining its transparency or accountability.

Bremer escaped Baghdad by helicopter two days before his proconsulship expired to avoid a possible ambush on the road leading to the airport, which he had been unable to secure. He has recently been awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, an honor he shares with ex-CIA Director George ?Slam-dunk? Tenet.

Considerable fraud has been alleged regarding American companies, much of which can never be addressed because the Bush administration does not regard contracts with the CPA as pertaining to the U.S. government, even though U.S. taxpayer dollars were involved in some transactions.

Many of the contracts for work in Iraq were awarded on a cost-plus basis, in which an agreed-upon percentage of profit would be added to the actual costs of performing the contract. Such contracts are an invitation to fraud, and unscrupulous companies will make every effort to increase their costs so that the profits will also increase proportionally.

Halliburton, Vice President Dick Cheney?s former company, has a no-bid monopoly contract with the Army Corps of Engineers that is now estimated to be worth $10 billion. In June 2005, Pentagon contracting officer Bunny Greenhouse told a congressional committee that the agreement was the ?most blatant and improper contracting abuse? that she had ever witnessed, a frank assessment that subsequently earned her a demotion.

Halliburton has frequently been questioned over its poor record keeping, and critics claim that it has a history of overcharging for its services. In May 1967, a company called RMK/BRJ could not account for $120 million in materiel sent to Vietnam and was investigated several times for overcharging on fuel. RMK/BRJ is now known as KBR or Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary that has been the focus of congressional, Department of Defense, and General Accountability Office investigations. Defense Contract Audit Agency auditors have questioned Halliburton?s charges on a $1.6 billion fuel contract, claiming that the overcharges on the contract exceed $200 million. In one instance, the company charged the Army more than $27 million to transport $82,000 worth of fuel from Kuwait to Iraq. Halliburton has also been accused of billing the Army for 42,000 daily meals for soldiers, though it was only actually serving 14,000. In another operation, KBR purchased fleets of Mercedes trucks at $85,000 each to re-supply U.S. troops. The trucks carried no spare parts or even extra tires for the grueling high-speed run across the Kuwaiti and Iraqi deserts. When the trucks broke down on the highway, they were abandoned and destroyed rather than repaired.

Responding to complaints, Halliburton refused to permit independent auditing and inspected itself using so-called ?Tiger Teams.? One such team stayed at the five-star Kuwait Kempinski Hotel while it was doing its audit, running up a bill of more than $1 million that was passed on to U.S. taxpayers.

Another U.S. firm well connected to the Bush White House, Custer Battles, has provided security services to the coalition, receiving $11 million in Iraqi funds including $4 million in cash in a sole-source contract to supply security at Baghdad International Airport. The company had never provided airport security before receiving the contract. It also received a $21 million no-bid contract to provide security for the exchange of Iraqi currency. It has been alleged that much of the currency ?replaced? by Custer Battles has never been accounted for. The company also allegedly took over abandoned Iraqi-owned forklifts at the airport, repainted them, and then leased them back to the airport authority through a company set up in the Cayman Islands. Custer Battles reportedly set up a number of shell companies in offshore tax havens in Lebanon, Cyprus, and the Cayman Islands to handle the cash flow.

Two former company managers turned whistleblowers have charged that the company defrauded the U.S. government of at least $50 million. The Bush administration?s Justice Department has only reluctantly, and under pressure from a Newsweek exposé, supported the rights of the plaintiffs in the case. The White House has indicated that it is not interested in assisting other investigations of fraud in Iraqi contracting, preferring to regard the CPA as a ?multinational entity? and thereby limiting its vulnerability in American courts.

Another American contractor, CACI International, which was involved in the Abu Ghraib interrogations, was accused by the GAO in April 2004 of having failed to keep records on hours of work that it was billing for and of routinely upgrading employee job descriptions so that more could be charged per employee per hour. Both are apparently common practices among contractors in Iraq, and audits routinely determine that there is little in the way of paperwork to support billings. The GAO report also confirms that many private security contractors in Iraq have been charging the U.S. government exorbitant fees for their services, frequently because the contracts allow security costs to be rolled into the overall cost of the contract without being itemized. In one case, contract security guards were effectively being billed at $33,000 per guard per month while the average rate for a security specialist worked out to between $13,000 and $20,000 per month.

The CPA also spread its largesse around the U.S. armed forces, distributing over $600 million in cash to four regional commanders to fund reconstruction projects as part of the Commanders? Emergency Response Program. An audit of one region disclosed that 80 percent of the funds could not be accounted for, and more that $7 million in cash was missing. It is widely believed that many of the contracting agents working under the regional commands literally stole the money. In one reported instance, an American contracting officer doubled the price of a multimillion-dollar contract and brazenly explained that the extra money would be for his retirement fund.

Unfortunately, the corruption of the occupation outlived the departure of Paul Bremer and the demise of the CPA. A recent high-level investigation of the Iraqi interim government concluded that the corruption is now so pervasive as to be irreversible. One prominent businessman estimates that 95 percent of all business activity involves some form of bribery or kickback. The bureaucrats and fixers who live off of bribery are referred to by ordinary Iraqis as ?Ali Babas,? named after the character in The Thousand and One Nights who was able to access riches from a treasure cave by saying ?open sesame.? For the average Iraqi businessman, there was formerly only one hand out, that of Saddam?s designated minion. Now every hand is out. The educated and entrepreneurial are leaving the country in droves, as is most of the beleaguered Christian minority. Huge government appropriations are approved by Iraqi lawmakers and then simply disappear. Meanwhile, life for the average Iraqi does not improve, and oil production, water supplies, and electricity generation are all at lower levels than they were when the U.S. took control in 2003. The only thing that everyone knows is that all the money is gone and daily life in Iraq is worse than it was under Saddam Hussein.

The undocumented cash flow continued long after the CPA folded. Over $1.5 billion was disbursed to interim Iraqi ministries without any accounting, and more than $1 billion designated for provincial treasuries never made it out of Baghdad. More than $430 million in contracts issued by the Petroleum Ministry were unsupported by any documentation, and $8 billion were given to government ministries that had no financial controls in place. Nearly all of it disappeared, spent on ?payroll,? wages for ?ghost employees? in the Ministries of the Interior and Defense. In one case, an Army brigade receiving money to support 2,200 men was found to have fewer than 300 effectives. 602 actual guards at the Ministry of the Interior were billed as more than 8,200 for payroll purposes.

Iraqi Airways carried 2,400 employees even though it had not operated for over a year and had no planes. The airline itself was sold to an unidentified buyer without any paperwork to show for how much it was sold and what assets were included. It has been alleged that the buyer might well have been Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi.

Nearly all payrolls in the national guard and national police were also inflated, leading to uncertainty over how large the security forces actually were?still an open question. Absentees from the nominal rolls of police and soldiers provided by government ministries are believed to number in the tens of thousands, and as the United States Congress has figured out, frequently cited figures on available trained manpower are largely imaginary.

Even the ?coalition of the willing? partners have been quick to cash in. Polish helicopters purchased as part of a $300 million deal with arms maker Bumar Ltd. were found to be obsolete, largely unflyable, and were actually rejected by the Iraqis. Bullets purchased from Poland by the Defense Ministry cost three times the normal international price. Five Polish peacekeepers have been arrested for demanding $90,000 in bribes. Both British and American soldiers have also demanded bribes from shopkeepers and travelers.

In yet another instance of take-it-while-you-can, a senior Interior Ministry official flew to Beirut in a helicopter accompanied by $10 million in newly printed Iraqi dinars. He has yet to return. Interim Iraqi President Iyad Allawi?s Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan transferred $500 million to a bank account in Lebanon, allegedly to buy weapons, in a case that continues to be murky. Shaalan is reportedly vacationing abroad and has not returned to Iraq. A Bremer favorite at the Defense Ministry, Ziad Tareq Cattan, was responsible for a number of shady arms-procurement deals. A warrant has been issued for his arrest, an unusual occurrence, and he is avoiding detention by staying with family in Erbil in Kurdistan.

Countless billions will never be accounted for, and the full cost of corruption has yet to be tallied. Sources report that much of the money that was designated for the development of a national army and police force is actually going to units that are exclusively Kurd or Shi?ite in expectation of a day of reckoning over the country?s oil supplies. The Kurds have made no secret of their desire to continue their autonomy-bordering-on-independence and have stated that they regard Kirkuk as their own. The Shi?ites have possession of the oil-producing region to the south and are using their control of the Interior Ministry to fill police ranks with their own pro-Iranian Badr Brigade members as well as militiamen drawn from radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr?s Mehdi Army. The Sunnis are the odd men out, virtually guaranteeing that, far from becoming the model democracy the U.S. set out to build, Iraq will descend deeper into chaos?aided in no small part by the culture of corruption we helped to fortify.
_______________________________________________

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.

9/11 Gagged

There's actually a good reason why the 9/11 Commission report hasn't had a critical review by the Congressional Committees on Intelligence. The gag order issued by the White House on October 5, 2001 prohibits the disclosure of information on the U.S. response to the 9/11 attacks to all but eight members of the House and Senate. While the Chair and Vice Chair of the Committees can still be briefed by members of the Cabinet or their direct subordinates, the other members of the committees and the committee staff can't. So, who would take the minutes?

******
Given this restriction on the disclosure of classified information, it would seem that the only reason Ambassador Joe Wilson was able to bring the yellow cake to the table was because the intelligence about it was demonstrably false.

National Security Experts Speak Out:
9/11 Commission Falls Short

Date: September 13, 2004

To The Congress of The United States:

The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States ended its report stating that "We look forward to a national debate on the merits of what we have recommended, and we will participate vigorously in that debate."

In this spirit, we the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations.

We thus call upon Congress to refrain from narrow political considerations and to apply brakes to the race to implement the commission recommendations. It is not too late for Congress to break with the practice of limiting testimony to that from politicians and top-layer career bureaucrats-many with personal reputations to defend and institutional equities to protect.

Instead, use this unique opportunity to introduce salutary reform, an opportunity that must not be squandered by politically driven haste.

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission?s report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention.

Serious problems and shortcomings within government agencies likewise were reported to the Commission but were not included in the report. The report simply does not get at key problems within the intelligence, aviation security, and law enforcement communities. The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations.

We believe that one of the primary purposes of the Commission was to establish accountability; that to do so is essential to understanding the failures that led to 9/11, and to prescribe needed changes.

However, the Commission in its report holds no one accountable, stating instead "our aim has not been to assign individual blame". That is to play the political game, and it shows that the goal of achieving unanimity overrode one of the primary purposes of this Commission?s establishment.

When calling for accountability, we are referring not to quasi-innocent mistakes caused by "lack of imagination" or brought about by ordinary "human error". Rather, we refer to intentional actions or inaction by individuals responsible for our national security, actions or inaction dictated by motives other than the security of the people of the United States.

The report deliberately ignores officials and civil servants who were, and still are, clearly negligent and/or derelict in their duties to the nation. If these individuals are protected rather than held accountable, the mindset that enabled 9/11 will persist, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy are added, and no matter how much money is poured into the agencies. Character counts.

Personal integrity, courage, and professionalism make the difference. Only a commission bent on holding no one responsible and reaching unanimity could have missed that.

We understand, as do most Americans, that one of our greatest strengths in defending against terrorism is the dedication and resourcefulness of those individuals who work on the frontlines.

Even before the Commission began its work, many honest and patriotic individuals from various agencies came forward with information and warnings regarding terrorism-related issues and serious problems within our intelligence and aviation security agencies.

If it were not for these individuals, much of what we know today of significant issues and facts surrounding 9/11 would have remained in the dark. These "whistleblowers" were able to put the safety of the American people above their own careers and jobs, even though they had reason to suspect that the deck was stacked against them. Sadly, it was.

Retaliation took many forms: some were ostracized; others were put under formal or informal gag orders; some were fired. The commission has neither acknowledged their contribution nor faced up to the urgent need to protect such patriots against retaliation by the many bureaucrats who tend to give absolute priority to saving face and protecting their own careers.

The Commission did emphasize that barriers to the flow of information were a primary cause for wasting opportunities to prevent the tragedy. But it skipped a basic truth.

Secrecy enforced by repression threatens national security as much as bureaucratic turf fights. It sustains vulnerability to terrorism caused by government breakdowns. Reforms will be paper tigers without a safe channel for whistleblowers to keep them honest in practice.

It is unrealistic to expect that government workers will defend the public, if they can't defend themselves. Profiles in Courage are the exception, not the rule.

Unfortunately, current whistleblower rights are a cruel trap and magnet for cynicism. The Whistleblower Protection Act has turned into an efficient way to finish whistleblowers off by endorsing termination.

No government workers have access to jury trials like Congress enacted for corporate workers after the Enron/MCI debacles.

Government workers need genuine, enforceable rights just as much to protect America's families, as corporate workers do to protect America's investments. It will take congressional leadership to fill this hole in the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations.

While we do not intend to imply that all recommendations of this report are flawed, we assert that the Commission?s list of recommendations does not include many urgently needed fixes, and further, we argue that some of their recommendations, such as the creation of an ?intelligence czar?, and haphazard increases in intelligence budgets, will lead to increases in the complexity and confusion of an already complex and highly bureaucratic system.

Congress has been hearing not only from the commissioners but from a bevy of other career politicians, very few of whom have worked in the intelligence community, and from top-layer bureaucrats, many with vested interests in saving face and avoiding accountability.

Congress has not included the voices of the people working within the intelligence and broader national security communities who deal with the real issues and problems day-after-day and who possess the needed expertise and experience-in short, those who not only do the job but are conscientious enough to stick their necks out in pointing to the impediments they experience in trying to do it effectively.

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part.

Respectfully,

1. Costello, Edward J. Jr., Former Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI

2. Cole, John M., Former Veteran Intelligence Operations Specialist, FBI

3. Conrad, David "Mark", Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs

4. Dew, Rosemary N., Former Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism & Counterintelligence, FBI

5. Dzakovic, Bogdan, Former Red Team Leader, FAA

6. Edmonds, Sibel D., Former Language Specialist, FBI

7. Elson, Steve, Retired Navy Seal & Former Special Agent, FAA & US Navy

8. Forbes, David, Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analysts, BoydForbes, Inc.,

9. Goodman, Melvin A., Former Senior Analyst/ Division Manager, CIA; Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy

10. Graf, Mark, Former Security Supervisor, Planner, & Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy

11. Graham, Gilbert M., Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI

12. Kleiman, Diane, Former Special Agent, US Customs

13. Kwiatkowski, Karen U., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.), Veteran Policy Analyst-DoD

14. Larkin, Lynne A., Former Operation Officer, CIA

15. MacMichael, David, Former Senior Estimates Officer, CIA

16. McGovern, Raymond L., Former Analyst, CIA

17. Pahle, Theodore J., Retired Senior Intelligence Officer, DIA

18. Sarshar, Behrooz, Retired Language Specialist, FBI

19. Sullivan, Brian F., Retired Special Agent & Risk Management Specialist, FAA

20. Tortorich, Larry J., Retired US Naval Officer, US Navy & Dept. of Homeland Security/TSA

21. Turner, Jane A., Retired Special Agent, FBI

22. Vincent, John B., Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI

23. Whitehurst, Dr. Fred, Retired Supervisory Special Agent/Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI

24. Wright, Ann, Col. US Army (ret.); and Former Foreign Service officer

25. Zipoli, Matthew J., Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE

CC:

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Pat Roberts & Vice Chairman John D. Rockefeller

Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman Orrin G. Hatch & Ranking Democratic Member Patrick Leahy

Senate Committee on Armed Services, Chairman John Warner & Ranking Member Carl Levin

Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Chairman Susan Collins & Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Chairman Porter J. Goss & Ranking Member Jane Harman

House Committee on the Judiciary, Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. & Ranking Member John Conyers

House Armed Services Committee, Chairman Duncan Hunter & Ranking Member Ike Skelton

House Committee on Government Reform, Chairman Tom Davis & Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman

House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Chairman Christopher Cox & Ranking Member Jim Turner

Senator Charles Grassley

PR government

Greg Greene tells it like it is on Blog for America:

Forgive us if we refrain from putting our Iraqi-election-analyst hats on. Still, we thought the President had a goal of using democracy as a pressure valve in order to reduce violence, and allow our troops to leave. If that's the case, the U.S. should have bent over backwards to prevent even an appearance of fraud ? right? Right?
Posted by Greg Greene at 02:03 AM

Wrong, Greg. You don't seem to get it. Democracy is the "opportunity" to cast a ballot. What's on it and whether or not it gets counted is totally irrelevant. See. It's a public relations exercise--just like those polls we are always taking part in and the manufacturers of soap and cars are always conducting. It's the process that's important, the feeling that public opinion is being considered. But, it would be stupid to let it affect anything. Don't you know that was Clinton's big problem? He actually paid attention to the polls and tried to do what people wanted. What a schmuck.

Perhaps I should explain that I've spent a couple of hours this morning reading my latest New Yorker. Then I had to stop. I just couldn't take it anymore. Though I will admit that this issue has a varied content that I guess is supposed to appeal to someone who's into social issues.

But, since I'm not an appreciator of comedy (don't understand the comics, though I like Oscar's tags), I was not enthused to learn about Sara Silverman who thinks it's funny to put red paint on her costume and let people think she's having her period and then announce that: no, she'd just had a peculiar sexual experience. From where I sit, the world would be a much better place if private behaviors were kept private. I mean, how can we agitate for a right to privacy in the Constitution when we flaunt our most intimate behaviors on the public stage?

It's true that one can make the effort to respect someone's privacy by closing one's eyes and trying not to hear their farts, but don't people also have an obligation to moderate offensive behaviors or do them behind closed doors?

One of the main New Yorker articles is about a guy named Viereck (no mention of the fact that viereck is the German word for 'square') who's supposed to be the "father" of neoconservatism, but who's rejected what the movement has evolved into. I think he mainly objected to liberalism because he really hated his father, a liberal and an early Nazi, but thinks that patriarchy is a good idea.

That led me to think that maybe where our problems with all these ideas comes from is that they all assume "government" as a given. Indeed, they assume that government is synonymous with society. But, if you accept that principle, you're already lost because government implies an outside control of the individual and then, to justify imposing control on an entity that wants to be free and unrestricted, you have to make the second assumption--that the individual deserves to be controlled because he's basically bad.
Never mind that, to begin with, the essence of that badness is nothing more than the reluctance of a mobile creature to be controlled.

******
The big difference between liberals and conservatives when it comes to government is figuring how control of the population is best achieved. Our traditional liberals were convinced that if people were bribed with good things, social benefits, so they would conform their behavior to what was expected. Conservatives preferred to go the cheaper route of using threats of bad things happening, if people don't behave. Since bad things or the use of physical force tend to generate resistance, most recent conservatives have relied on predictions of bad things coming from outside, if the population didn't behave as directed.

The problem with this strategy (crying wolf on a large scale) is that it loses its effect, if nothing bad actually happens over a long period of time. So, for example, the demise of the Cold War wasn't so much an end to actual conflict, as an end to the reliability of the promise that a really nasty attack was in the offing.

To deal with this problem, the people who believe in governing with threats have had to be more and more inventive. Which, in effect, means that the lies have had to be more and more blatant and, as the mechanisms for verification have improved (the new technological capability in every living room), it was only a matter of time until the pattern of lies was fully exposed.

Which is where we are at now.

Where we are not at is the realization that all the assumptions about government are false--that, indeed, the organization of society isn't a matter of control at all, but a matter of mutual benefit. And further, that although individual interests are likely to conflict, since not everyone can have everything they want at the same time, time is of the essence. More particularly, that most people can get most of what they want, if they'll just take turns.

In part, that's because most of what people think they want before they get it, they don't actually want after they have it. So, they're more than glad to get rid of it and let one person's trash be another's treasure. In part, it's because people are fickle and more inclined to change rather than permanence. Another way of saying that is that people are easily bored, especially with what they have. So, taking turns actually fits nicely with enjoying a change.

The assertion that people resist change is also false. Humans like change. What they don't like is to BE CHANGED by someone else.

Perhaps one reason the PR people were actually successful in usurping the government was because, for the most part, their persuasion was gentle and what they were promising didn't sound like it was going to hurt. But, the reality has turned out to be different. The control they have wrested has turned out not to be gentle at all and the promises they made have turned out to be lies.

And that's where we're at. And the problem we face is how to wrest the instruments of force out of the hands of these people, who don't mean us well. In the nuclear age, that's going to have to be handled with particular sensitivity. People who govern with threats are not likely, when their power is challenged, to be particularly reluctant to actualize those threats with a show of force.
That might just be a promise they keep.

Waiting for Fitzmas

It's really quite stressful. Watergate was easier because there wasn't the anticipation; we had no idea what to expect.
So what are my reflections at this point?

For some reason, the revelation that President Kennedy had ordered the nuclear missiles not to be deployed in Turkey and they were anyway and the inevitable conclusion from this fact that the Cuban missile crisis need not have happened has generated a bunch of new perceptions.

Because, if in fact, Kennedy gave in to the Soviet demands that the missiles be removed and provided a guarantee that Cuba would not be invaded again by the U.S., then his assassination by a supposed supporter of Castro and the Soviet Union makes no sense at all. So, perhaps both he and his brother were eliminated by those who had different plans for the Eastern hemisphere.

When you then consider that it is likely that the withdrawal from Vietnam was associated with a pledge from China that it would not attempt to annex the vacated area, then perhaps Nixon's abandonment of U.S. military assets in Indochina contributed to his betrayal by his own subordinates. Which may be why he resigned rather than admit how his administration had been undermined.

There are a couple of things that are puzzling. One is why Jimmy Carter dismissed Bush from his position as head of the CIA. It's not usual for agency heads to be considered political appointments and it would seem to have been out of character for an obvious organization man like Carter.

The other thing that doesn't make any sense is why Saddam Hussein drained the marshes at the mouths of the Tigris and Euphratis and why, even more puzzling, recreating the marshes was one of the first things the U.S. did after the invasion. Ecologically sound practices are not the hallmark of the Bushes. There must be another reason.

Was the draining of the marshes intended to facilitate the building of docking facilities? Does the U.S. simply not need them since it has adequate naval facilities in Kuwait? Is the U.S. Navy still being undervalued in preference to land-based military facilities?

I'm reminded that in the mid-seventies much of out Navy had been moth-balled. And, of course, Kennedy as a navy man thought that submarine-based missiles would be a better bet than missiles sitting on launch pads in Turkey.

So, are the land, air and sea services still in competition with each other? If so, what's the significance of a marine being designated as the head of the joint chiefs?

Clueless in NO

Death in streets took a back seat to dinner

By Hope Yen

The Associated Press
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002574244_fema21.html

E-mail excerpts

Marty Bahamonde, regional director for New England, to David Passey, regional director for the Gulf Coast, Aug. 28, 4:46 p.m.

"Issues developing at the Superdome. 2000 already in and more standing in line. ... The medical staff at the dome says they will run out of oxygen in about 2 hours and are looking for alternative oxygen."

Bahamonde to Deborah Wing, FEMA response specialist, Aug 28, 5:28 p.m.

"Everyone is soaked. This is going to get ugly real fast."

Passey to group, Aug 28, 7:16 p.m.

"The current population at the Superdome in New Orleans is 25,000. That's a large crowd during a normal event. Among the shelter population are 400 special needs evacuees and 45-50 sick individuals who require hospitalization. The on-hand oxygen supply will likely run out in the next few hours. According to the ... [health and medical services] folks, the local health officials have struggled to put meaningful resource requests together."

Passey to Bahamonde, Aug. 28, 9:58 p.m.

"Our intel is that neither the ... [Oklahoma medical-disaster team] nor the public health officers staged in Memphis will make it to the Superdome tonight. Oxygen supply issue has not been solved yet either."

Bahamonde to Michael Heath, FEMA official, Aug. 29, 7:33 a.m.

"Some pumping stations failed but no widespread flooding yet. The reall worry will be in the next 3 hours when he storm passes and we get the northerly winds blowing thwe lake into the city

Bahamonde to Nicole Andrews, FEMA spokeswoman, Aug. 30, 7:02 a.m.

"The area around the Superdome is filling up with water, now waist deep."

Bahamonde to Taylor, Sept. 3, 1:06 a.m.

"The leadership from top down in our agency is unprepared and out of touch. ... But while I am horrified at some of the cluelessness and self concern that persists, I try to focus on those that have put their lives on hold to help people that they have never met and never will. And while I sometimes think that I can't work in this arena, I can't get out of my head the visions of children and babies I saw sitting there, helpless, looking at me and hoping I could make a difference and so I will and you must to."

The Associated Press
**************************************************************************
On Aug. 31, Bahamonde e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands of evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that "estimates are many will die within hours."

"Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical," Bahamonde wrote. "The sooner we can get the medical patients out, the sooner we can get them out."

A short time later, Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, wrote to colleagues, in an e-mail containing numerous misspellings, to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. "He needs much more that 20 or 30 minutes," Worthy wrote.

"Restaurants are getting busy," she said. "We now have traffic to encounter to get to and from a location of his choise, followed by wait service from the restaurant staff, eating, etc. Thank you."

"OH MY GOD!!!!!!!" Bahamonde messaged a co-worker. "I just ate an MRE [military rations] and crapped in the hallway of the Superdome along with 30,000 other close friends so I understand her concern about busy restaurants."

Saddam Smiles

Base Construction

Iraq, Afghan Commitments Fuel U.S. Air Base Construction

By Bradley Graham
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, September 17, 2005; Page A18

BAGRAM, Afghanistan -- The Soviets built a runway here more than 20 years ago to land fighter jets. The Americans, having pretty much worn that one out with their jumbo cargo planes, are building a new, longer strip meant to withstand the U.S. military's heaviest loads.

The construction, at the four-year mark in America's military presence in Afghanistan, isn't stopping there. Plans call for expanded ramps for fighter jets and helicopters, multiple ammunition storage bunkers and a six-story control tower, for a total bill exceeding $96 million.

Bagram air base north of Kabul is one of several being upgraded to handle heavy U.S. military traffic.

An even more expensive airfield renovation is underway in Iraq at the Balad air base, a hub for U.S. military logistics, where for $124 million the Air Force is building additional ramp space for cargo planes and helicopters.

And farther south, in Qatar, a state-of-the-art, 104,000-square-foot air operations center for monitoring U.S. aircraft in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa is taking shape in the form of a giant concrete bunker. The $500 million price tag includes a set of support facilities that would be the envy of any air force.

All in all, the U.S. military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region -- an expansion plan that U.S. commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area.

But the building boom has raised questions, particularly in view of expectations that fewer U.S. troops will be engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan starting next year.

"With all this construction, how long are we going to be here?" an Air Force captain asked Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, the Central Command's top officer, as the general toured a line of A-10 attack jets here this week. In the distance, 12-wheel dump trucks hauled loads of dirt and phalanxes of bulldozers pushed fresh earth to make way for the new runway.

"I don't know myself," Abizaid replied. He noted that the base could end up being turned over to the Afghans. But U.S. combat operations may be required "for quite a while," he added, "so making it right to start with is not a bad investment."

U.S. military commanders anticipate that reductions in ground forces in the region will not necessarily mean reductions in air power -- or at least not as quickly.

In Afghanistan, where plans call for NATO troops to supplant some U.S. soldiers, possibly by next year, U.S. aircraft will still be needed to provide cover, officers said. In Iraq, where homegrown forces are the key to withdrawing U.S. troops, development of an Iraqi air force lags well behind formation of the new army.

"As the ground force shrinks, we'll need the air to be able to put a presence in parts of the country where we don't have soldiers, to keep eyes out where we don't have soldiers on the ground," said Lt. Gen. Walter E. Buchanan III, who oversees Central Command's air operations.

At its peak strength in the region during the "shock and awe" phase of the invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Air Force operated from about three dozen bases. Some were in Central Asian countries that previously had been closed to U.S. military aircraft, others in Middle Eastern countries that expanded the number of airfields available for U.S. flights.

In the past two years, the number of bases in the region used by U.S. military planes has dropped by more than half, to about 16, as the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have evolved into grinding ground campaigns against elusive insurgents.

But U.S. aircraft still fly often -- an average of 170 sorties a day last month for strike, airlift, refueling and surveillance missions over Iraq, and 65 a day over Afghanistan, according to Central Command figures. And combat planes frequently are being used in nontraditional ways -- for instance, to scout for suspicious activity or to ferry supplies to reduce the load for more vulnerable ground convoys.

Here at Bagram, about 40 miles north of Kabul, concrete slabs on the runway surface have literally been crumbling under the weight of heavy transport aircraft. Repair teams attempt to patch cracks as many as six times a day. But U.S. commanders ultimately concluded that it would be easier and cheaper to build a new 11,800-foot runway.

The project is due for completion in March, and the timing has proven fortuitous. Last month, the government of Uzbekistan ordered the United States to stop flying out of Karshi-Khanabad air base, known as K2, which had become a vital logistics hub for U.S. military and humanitarian operations in Afghanistan. While the Pentagon has shifted the C-130 transport planes once stationed in Uzbekistan to Manas air base in Kyrgyzstan, plans call for at least some of those planes to move eventually to Bagram, enhancing its growing role as a major air logistics center.

The efforts at Bagram, along with a $34 million runway improvement project at Kandahar in southern Afghanistan, are being driven by the military mission in Afghanistan, according to Buchanan and other senior commanders.

But other major airfield expansion work in the region, notably at al-Udeid air base in Qatar and al-Dhafra in the United Arab Emirates, is related not to any specific conflict but rather is meant to establish these locations as "enduring bases" for U.S. military aircraft, Buchanan said. The expectation is that these bases will remain available for U.S. use for at least another decade or two.

"In a number of cases, we're asking host countries to contribute, and in most cases they are," said Col. Josuelito Worrell, who manages Air Force construction in the Central Command region. For example, a substantial share of the bill for the new operations center and aircraft support facilities at al-Udeid is being funded by the Qatari government, U.S. officers said.

War is Peace

William Blum has his own site where he publishes pertinent information with footnotes:

http://www.killinghope.org

War is Peace, Occupation is Sovereignty
The town of Rawa in Northern Iraq is occupied. The United States has built an Army outpost there to cut off the supply of foreign fighters purportedly entering Iraq from Syria. The Americans engage in house searches, knocking in doors, summary detentions, road blocks, air strikes, and other tactics highly upsetting to the people of Rawa. Recently, the commander of the outpost, Lt. Col. Mark Davis, addressed a crowd of 300 angry people. "We're not going anywhere," he told the murmuring citizens. "Some of you are concerned about the attack helicopters and mortar fire from the base," he said. "I will tell you this: those are the sounds of peace."{1}
He could have said, making as much sense, that they were the sounds of sovereignty. Iraq is a sovereign nation, Washington assures us, particularly in these days of the constitutional referendum, although the vote will do nothing to empower the Iraqis to relieve their daily misery, serving only a public relations function for the United States; the votes, it should be noted, were counted on an American military base; on the day of the referendum, American warplanes and helicopters were busy killing some 70 people around the city of Ramadi.{2}
London also insists that Iraq is a sovereign nation. Recently, hundreds of residents filled the streets in the southern city of Basra, shouting and pumping their fists in the air to condemn British forces for raiding a jail and freeing two British soldiers. Iraqi police had arrested the Britons, who were dressed as civilians, for allegedly firing their guns (at whom or what is not clear), and either trying to plant explosives or having explosives in their vehicle. British troops then assembled several armored vehicles, rammed them through the jailhouse wall, and freed the men, as helicopter gunships hovered above.{3}
An intriguing side question: We have here British soldiers dressed as civilians (at least one report said dressed as Arabs), driving around in a car with explosives, firing guns ... Does this not feed into the frequent speculation that coalition forces have been to some extent part of the "insurgency"? The same insurgency that's used as an excuse by the coalition to remain in Iraq?
Afghanistan is also sovereign we are told. In July a statement by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization -- made up of Russia, China, Kyrgyzstan and its Central Asian neighbors -- asked the United States to specify a date of its troop withdrawal from Central Asian bases on the ground that operations in Afghanistan were winding down. But in September we could read in a Washington Post report from Afghanistan: "The Soviets built a runway here more than 20 years ago to land fighter jets. The Americans, having pretty much worn that one out with their jumbo cargo planes, are building a new, longer strip meant to withstand the U.S. military's heaviest loads. The construction, at the four-year mark in America's military presence in Afghanistan, isn't stopping there. Plans call for expanded ramps for fighter jets and helicopters, multiple ammunition storage bunkers and a six-story control tower, for a total bill exceeding $96 million. An even more expensive airfield renovation is underway in Iraq at the Balad air base, a hub for U.S. military logistics, where for $124 million the Air Force is building additional ramp space for cargo planes and helicopters. And farther south, in Qatar, a state-of-the-art, 104,000-square-foot air operations center for monitoring U.S. aircraft in the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa is taking shape in the form of a giant concrete bunker. The $500 million price tag includes a set of support facilities that would be the envy of any air force.
"All in all, the U.S. military has more than $1.2 billion in projects either underway or planned in the Central Command region -- an expansion plan that U.S. commanders say is necessary both to sustain operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and to provide for a long-term presence in the area."{4}
There are of course areas other than the military which illustrate Washington's continuing exercise of sovereignty over Iraq, areas such as those concerning multinational corporations. Sales of Iraqi assets and laws and decrees concerning deregulation, privatization, corporate taxes, etc. were promulgated early on by Washington's Coalition Provisional Authority to make life easy for Halliburton and its partners in crime. These laws and decrees still remain in force and were set up to be rather difficult to amend. From all accounts, the new Iraqi constitution makes no mention of them.
And let us not forget: All Americans in Iraq, and all their allies, military or civilian, have complete immunity from any Iraqi law enforcement or judicial body, no matter what they do.

{4} Washington Post, September 17, 2005, p.18

Freewaybloggers

As you all know, a blogger is a person who keeps a diary or "log" of daily events on the world wide we'b'. It's a new creation in that it makes something that used to be private very public. This idea of public exposure of strongly held ideas (serious or frivolous) has expanded to the freeway or public highways. Here's an example

Now, it's apparent to a lot of people that this is an effective way to send a message temporarily (longer than was expected since the banner on the bridge can now be found by searching images in google on the internet) and so it has been decided that when the 2000th troop is killed in Iraq, people all over the country will head to the highways and byways as FREEWAYBLOGGERS in protest of this wanton destruction of our youth.

Iraq Timeline

http://www.politicalclothing.com/iraq_timeline_letter.pdf

Iraq News

http://www.uruknet.info/?l=x&p=-6&size=1&hd=0

China Card

What if the President of the United States, who's responsible for formulating foreign policy, determines that it is in the best interest of the nation that it establish long range missiles bases, complete with nuclear warheads, in countries within range of China, India and Russia? What if the countries adjudged most suitable aren't willing (unlike Italy, Spain, Turkey, Germany and Britain) to have our weapons of mass destruction stationed within their borders? And what if the President's advisors were uncertain that the American people would appreciate the wisdom of the President's judgement? Would that justify an invasion of the targeted country under false pretenses?

Given that the United States has a long history of spreading its nuclear arsenal around the globe in secret, as recently revealed in documents covering the post World War II period up to 1977, these questions are not entirely hypothetical. Indeed, it is pretty well established that US weapons of mass destruction are located in the above-mentioned nations. The question is where else? And where are they planned to be, but aren't there yet?

The recently revealed side-agreement to remove U.S. missiles from Turkey in order to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis is instructive in this regard. That President Kennedy had no difficulty agreeing to this Soviet demand is not surprising, since he'd already ordered them not to be deployed when he took office in 1961. That the agreement about what, in retrospect, prompted the Soviet placement of missiles in Cuba in the first place was kept secret can probably be accounted for by Kennedy's reluctance to admit that the American military had not been as responsive to civilian direction as most Americans have been taught to expect.

In any event, that the missiles are back in Turkey is not a well-covered story. Certainly not as well-covered as the fact that many Germans aren't at all happy with the missiles still left in their country and will be happy to see them removed. But where are they going to go?

Since the refrain hasn't been nearly as persistent as the one about WMDs in Iraq, most people have probably missed recent references to the growing worry that is China and it's resurrection of relations with Russia. And, as most people have probably forgotten, that was a big concern during the Cold War.

Some people have argued that this problem was addressed by the United States' policies creating a rift between those two powers and, specifically, by Richard Nixon making nice with China. But, that may not be accurate. After all, we have recently discovered in the case of Iraq that the United States making “nice” with a country doesn't necessarily mean a lot. Which suggests that Nixon going to China may simply have been the result of a realistic assessment that the effort to “contain” China by locating permanent military bases on its southern flank in Vietnam, as the American military were planning, was not going to be realized and that the best the United States could hope for was that China would not over-run Vietnam when we left. In other words, just as the United States agreed not to invade Cuba, if the Soviets took out their missiles, China agreed not to invade Vietnam if the U.S. withdrew its forces and gave up its ambition for permanent bases from which to threaten China with its nuclear missiles.

While this would seem to have been an equitable solution, I suspect that the military establishment was no happier with it than it was with Kennedy's. Indeed, if I were a full-fledged conspiracy theorist, I'd suggest that the assassination of Kennedy by a Soviet/Cuban sympathizer makes about as much sense as the break-in at the Watergate having been ordered by Nixon. Considering the people he had working for him, people who are still significant players in the Bush bureaucracy, Nixon's demise may well have been engineered since they really couldn't afford another assassination so soon.

In any event, since Vietnam was out of the question and there were already indications that the Philippines and New Zealand were tending towards the inhospitable, the Arabian Peninsula probably seemed like an acceptable alternative venue. Not to mention that the presence of oil provided a good excuse for American interest. And so the wooing of the countries in the region was begun. Lebanon proved inhospitable. Then Saudi and Yemen didn't work out too well either. Israel, one suspects, can't be too accommodating lest they become a target that can't be resisted. And then there was Iraq, expected to be grateful for any assistance in dealing with the Kurds and the expansionist interests of Iran and Syria. But, Saddam Hussein turned out to be a wily client, ultimately not willing to give up land for bases unless he got better access to the Gulf--i.e. Kuwait-- in return.

That's when greed or the lust for power overtook common sense and George H.W. Bush renegged on his commitment and decided to take with a show of force what hadn't been willingly ceded. And, again, Saddam Hussein, preferred recalcitrance to inviting an unreliable ally in. No matter how much pressure Clinton applied, his success was no better. So, with Bush II at the helm, there was nothing to do but to be bold, move in, and take by force enough land to accommodate at least four, if not the originally planned fourteen, permanent military bases in order to station the assets necessary to contain China.

So, we're back where we started over forty-five years ago.

Evil Afoot in the Land

A Sign of Intolerable Times

by Sunsara Taylor

Revolution #018, October 16, 2005, posted at revcom.us

Deep in the lynching belt:

Six Mexican immigrant men just outside Tifton, Georgia were killed overnight on September 30: beaten with an aluminum bat and shot. One immigrant woman was raped. Several others were critically injured. There have been 20 other similar incidents in this area recently.

The New York Times only gave this story 61 words, and most mainstream press did not even report it. Can you imagine five white businessmen beaten to death with an aluminum bat in their own homes not becoming front-page news in every single paper?

I read that Texas passed a new ordinance against parking or camping along the road outside Dubya?s Crawford ranch to prevent another war-mother from asking him simple questions. Anyone feel like holding their breath to see if there will be a peep from any legislators to prevent racist thugs from spewing their bigotry and inciting vigilante violence?

Oh wait--last I checked those in power WERE the ones singing the praises of the racist vigilantes.

Remember Schwarzenegger, the Nazi-sympathizing California governor, and others praising the Minutemen?

How about FEMA?s current policy to report (and help deport) immigrant victims of Katrina, preventing many from collecting aid, claiming their dead, or even being counted in the official death count?

What about the reports from towns like St. Helena where racist residents talk openly about wanting to keep the Black evacuees from New Orleans out of "their towns"?

Nope, last I heard, there was no outcry or denunciation from the highest offices in the land.

Last I checked, the illegitimate commander-in-chief was still smirking and bragging about the "great traditions" of this country and prancing around in a cowboy hat.

Just as the rise of extra-legal attacks on Jewish people in the late 1930?s in Germany was a glimpse of the future spurred on by government policy, this attack in Tifton is more the new norm than an anomaly.

Basta! Enough! As it says in the Call for The World Can?t Wait--Drive Out the Bush Regime, "That which you will not resist and mobilize to stop, you will learn--or be forced--to accept."

Don?t be a "good German"!

The Bush regime must be driven from power and the whole atmosphere of resurgent racism, bigotry, vigilantism, and brutal ignorance must be shattered and reversed.

The world cannot wait! Immigrants cannot wait!

Mobilize for November 2nd like the lives and futures of millions depend on it. They do.

*************************************************************************
Howard Dean spoke out about this crime. Americans for Legal Immigration, a group that's actually anti-immigrant, is using his words as a fund-raising and membership recruiting tool.

Sunday Roundup

Whenever the people who've captured our White House get the idea that the nation isn't being properly distracted by the five 'g's (god,gays,guns,girls and gets), while our pockets are being fleeced and all kinds of mayhem is being planned, they pull out the bumbling buffoon, their Weapon of Mass Distraction, to entertain the credulous.

That's obviously what's been going on in the last couple of weeks, culminating in that ridiculous staged Bush "conversation" with the troops in Iraq. That "inadvertent" exposure of the "rehearsal" to the cameras was obviously planned. Why else have it recorded from three different angles?

Anyway, aside from the usual allocation of money that we're not supposed to pay attention to, there's also the long range plan of the Defense Department, including the development of new nuclear weapons (designed to put the fear of "hellfire" into friends and foes alike. And then, of course, what nobody's supposed to talk about is what those permanent bases we're building in Iraq are for--have been for decades--Nobody is supposed to ask how come, if we're going to be leaving soon, the Pentagon is planning to spend twice as much money on military construction in Iraq in the next year, as it did in the previous four.
Could it be that what the U.S. is up to is still the same as in the '60s and '70s, planting missiles with nuclear warheads in foreign lands? Where else are the ones being moved out of Germany going to be moved to?

Just some things that we might ask about as we start lining up candidates for next year's congressional elections--a major focus of
DFA and other progressive groups. After all, those missiles, a lot more lethal than Katrina, are being bought with our money.

In the mean time, almost every community has important issues closer to home. Like, for example, who owns the groundwater. Bottling water and shipping it over-seas is becoming a serious business. Once one company does it, others have to be given access to this "free resource" under "fair trade" principles.
"Protecting New Hampshire's Water" will be the subject of a Conference to be held on Saturday, October 22nd at Southern New Hampshire University in Manchester.

On a lighter (or more elegant) note, Doris GrannyD Haddock, who ran for the Senate from our state (after walking cross country to promote campaign finance reform) is on a speaking tour to promote her book "Telling it Like it is" She'll be in Portsmouth on October 26. Check
http://www.grannyd.com

Given the growing energy crunch, nuclear power is sure to be a hot topic (or should be) during upcoming campaigns. Neighbors of our own Seabrook Nuclear Plant will want to attend the forum "Living Near Seabrook -- Know Your Radiation Risk," which will be held at the Mass. Audubon Joppa Flats Center on the Plum Island Turnpike with featured speakers Eula Bingham, PhD, a National Academy of Science's report author, and epidemiologist Dick Clapp, PhD., who will address the increased cancer-risk findings in the NAS's (BEIR VII) report. October 20, 7:00PM

And everywhere local Democratic party organizations seem to be making a greater effort to get more people aware and involved early on. Our own Strafford County Committee will hold it's next meeting on the UNH campus--Thursday, October 20, at 7 p.m. at the Memorial Union Building at the University of New Hampshire, in the Wildcat Den. UNH College Democrats hosting. We all know it's not enough to be a rubber stamp on election day. http://www.straffordcountydemocrats.org/

The WalMart Movie will be debuting in mid November. Look for discussion programs to be offered in conjunction with the release of "WAL*MART: The High Cost of Low Prices"
It's my personal opinion that industries and enterprises which rely on their employees being provided medical and preventive care through the federal Medicaid insurance program should be the primary supporters of a comprehensive national system--one that would do away with much of the paper work and redundant providers, many of whom, like the Veterans Administration, are not actually able to provide the kind of care that the victims of modern warfare and industrial pollution need anyway.

Finally, mayhem on a minor scale was the order of the day during the 2002 federal election in New Hampshire. A couple of fellows have now gone to jail for jamming the phone lines and our two DeLay cronies are being challenged to return the money set them from his PAC. One has; one's resistant. Neither will probably be sent back to D.C. next year, so it's probably one of those 'get' issues we should ignore--who gets money from Tom Delay is fast becoming just a distraction. But, if Delay gets some jail time for money laundering and racketeering, that would be worth a mention!!!!!!!!!

NO Story

Leaving New Orleans at Gunpoint

Todd Lowe is the inaugural guest of the DFA Fall Session?we'll be inviting other guests to speak with the DFA community over the coming weeks. Todd joins us tonight to talk about his family's experiences in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

My name is Todd Lowe. I am married and have 3 children. We rode out Hurricane Katrina without too much trouble and made it through the original sweeps trying to get everyone out of the city. We were stocked to an almost silly level with 75 gallons of drinking water and about six weeks of canned foods at the beginning. We are homeschoolers so we used the time when we couldn't leave the house because of the floodwaters productively working with our kids on various projects. We were anxiously awaiting the silly
militant kicking people out of the city to end so that we could begin cleaning up.

On Sept. 11th we decided we were sick of staying in our house when there was so much work to be done. We went out and got our van started which had been up in the side yard ?just high enough that it took no damage?and we were able to charge our cell phones from the car charger. We were getting full Sprint service and we had been able to call friends and family to tell them
that we were doing fine. The flood waters had been down for a couple of days in the Esplanade Ridge area, but it was quite dirty. There was a fence and some limbs that had to be removed to get the van out of the yard. We met members of the 82nd Airborne who treated us with total respect on the day of the 11th, the night of the 11th, and the day of the 12th.

On Sept 13th, I decided that I should call the mortgage company to let them know that I wasn't going to be sending a check to this month ;) (They, by the way, had deferred my loan for 90 days with no penalties I found out later.) It was about 11:00 in the morning. I had just called the number and was waiting for an operator when I heard loud voices yelling at me from the front of the house and my eldest child yelling to me that there were men outside. I went to the front room of my house with the cell phone still in one hand and
my mortgage coupon book in the other hand. I was greeted by a screaming voice saying "SHOW US YOUR HANDS!" With one hand to my ear, and the other holding the coupon book a few inches from my nose so that I could read the info on it, I wasn't exactly hiding anything. I was wearing only a pair of shorts, so it wasn't like I had a shotgun hidden in my pants.

I walked to the window and they yelled at me to open the front door. As soon as I opened the front door, I had about 15 guns pointed at me. There were several state police officers on the front step along with a harbor police officer, and about a dozen other officers most with rifles pointed directly at my chest and head. Several of the officers started yelling at me to get my hands up, which I did, and they got me out the door and sat me down on the front step of my house. They said they had heard that I refused to leave and then they demanded to see my wife and children and our supplies.

They made me stay on the steps and went through the house with my wife who showed them our perfectly fine children, our flushing toilets, our 50+ gallons of drinking water and our approximately 3-4 week supply of dry and canned foods remaining. They said that everything looked fine but that they did not think it was a safe environment for my children and therefore they were going to take my children from me if we did not immediately agree to leave. As I was not about to turn my children over to a bunch of armed thugs, I agreed to leave.

?Todd

Cuss Me Out and Cut My Hair

Cuss Me Out and Cut My Hair
A student journalist touring a devastated New Orleans observes what's wrong and right in "official" responses, and finds her own answer to the question, "What can I do?"

By Nikki G. Bannister, Special to Black College Wire and THE BLACK COLLEGIAN Magazine

Posted Oct. 10, 2005

I told them to cuss me out.

Not that I condone cursing or profanity, but since Hurricane Katrina reared her ugliness in Louisiana Aug. 29, that's how I helped the evacuees. I invited them to do what very few people have had the opportunity to do, right in my face.

About a week after Katrina, I visited shelters in three Louisiana parishes, or counties, with a delegation of about 50 people representing the office of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco. The delegation, led by Johnny Anderson, her assistant chief of staff, included officials from the state department of health and the Board of Regents, and city and parish officials from the New Orleans area. Also joining the tour were a few pastors, and representatives of some of our state's elected officials.

When we walked into our first stop, Southern University's F.G. Clark Activity Center, which had been converted into a regional shelter for storm victims, many of us reached out and immediately started talking with the evacuees.

We began hugging them and shaking hands and even playing basketball with them. But then, some in the delegation walked in the aisles of the hundreds of army cots and only waved to the evacuees -- as if they were going to catch a disease. It's not as though we were in the scene in "Gone With the Wind" when Scarlett O'Hara went through the church where soldiers were dying, but that's how some of the delegation acted.

Some behaved as if they didn't want to touch the evacuees. Mind you, some of these very folks were from New Orleans. They just waved to the displaced residents at the Minidome as if to say, "I'm here and that's enough."

I was embarrassed and ashamed even to walk with some of these people.

I also got upset because some in the delegation were wearing jeans or other casual clothes, and tennis shoes or even flip-flops, while some -- including pastors -- were wearing Rolex watches and gator boots. Talk about a socioeconomic slap in the face.

That's when I decided to go against the norm and try the unconventional.

During our next stop at the Baton Rouge River Center, which housed the most evacuees, a young man named Will was complaining to Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., about the living conditions and his treatment.

After he vented, I asked him if he would mind "cussing me out."

He looked at me as if I were crazy. But I explained that I saw his frustration, and though TV cameras were on him, I saw he had a lot more he wanted to say.

Now, anybody who knows me can tell you that at any other time, my personality would not even allow this type of thing to happen so liberally. But this was different.

He asked if I were serious and I told him I was. I also warned him that I might retaliate verbally, because I, too, had a lot to get off my chest.

And that's when he unleashed a verbal fury like none other. Some of the adjectives he used to describe his situation I'd never heard in my life. His positions on FEMA, the Red Cross, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and President Bush could not have aired on C-SPAN. HBO would have censored him. The way he cursed should have been on pay-per-view. But after I received the tongue-lashing, which lasted a good three minutes, he smiled and then laughed so hard he cried.

Then I knew I had achieved my purpose.

During the lashing, a small crowd formed to see why this man was cursing a young woman so badly.

After I explained, more came up and relieved themselves of their frustration, pain and hopelessness.

The great thing was I didn't even have to curse anybody back.

Since the storm hit, I had been thinking of ways to help, apart from offering the conventional assistance. I had already gathered my closest friends, and we pooled our resources to donate diapers, feminine hygiene products and other items. We even opened our homes to some of the evacuees. I had just moved into my house a month earlier, and the evacuees were using my Jacuzzi before I could. But I didn't mind.

It was the day after Katrina hit that really got to me. I was volunteering in a shelter and saw a lady patting her head (you ladies know what the pat means -- an itchy scalp). She had on makeup, but her hair was a mess.

At the time, my hair was on my shoulders. So I asked her, and a few other ladies, if they had hair products. They said no. I told the woman that I would bring her some things the following day.

I don't know what got into me. Perhaps I was "PMS-ing" or listening to "We Are the World," but after I finished walking and talking with some of the other evacuees, I went to my hair salon and told my beautician to cut off my hair.

Remember in Terry McMillan's Waiting to Exhale when Bernadine asked Gloria to cut off her hair, because she wanted to declare her independence from her husband, who liked it long? Well, I didn't have to curse my stylist to do it, but I did have to do some heavy coercion.

The next day, at the shelter, I gave away all my curling irons (including the Marcels), my oil treatments, rollers, setting lotions, pomades, Wrap-N-Taps, everything. If it made your hair look good, I had it. And I gave it away.

One lady who took one of my big-barreled curling irons said she was going to whip my you-know-what, because she could guess that I had a nice length of hair before my cut. "But God is going to bless you," she said.

Not that I don't need blessings right now, because Lord knows I do. But I didn't cut my hair or give away my beauty supplies thinking about the return on the blessings.

I did it because you never know when the tides will turn.

I never could have predicted that the worst natural disaster would be in my backyard.

I could have been an evacuee if that storm had turned just a few degrees northwest.

Please believe me when I say evacuees don't need photo ops. They don't need community leaders rushing to help one or two families or making pit stops to shelters just to say hello.

They need you, the neighbors and friends.

Don't ask the evacuees how they are doing. That's rhetoric. You can see how they are doing. And it ain't grand.

Ask them if they want a hug. Ask them if you can still borrow some sugar. Ask them if they want to cry or even if they want a curling iron. Better yet, you can simply ask them to curse you out.

Nikki G. Bannister is a senior at Southern University-Baton Rouge and editor-in-chief of The Southern Digest. This is part of a special series appearing in THE BLACK COLLEGIAN Magazine's October 2005 super issue through a collaboration by Black College Wire (BlackCollegeWire.org) and THE BLACK COLLEGIAN (Blackcollegian.com), now celebrating its 35th publishing year. It may be reprinted intact with this credit included.

Sins of Tom DeLay

For those who have nothing better to do--a timeline.

There used to be a time when legislators actually paid attention to newspaper reports to jump-start their investigations. Lately it seems their only interest is in making sure there's no follow-up and stories are buried on the back pages, never to see the light of day again.

Let's go back to November, 2000 and work our way forward through the DeLay cesspool (several of the synopses of articles and links were retrieved in chronological sequence from the archives at Democrats.com, where the editors have been tracking this career criminal's "progress" for years.

Nov 2000:
Delay Tries to Intimidate Supreme Court Judges to Fix Election Outcome

http://www.nytimes.com/2000/12/04/opinion/04RUSS.html?ex=1069390800&en=6b806e48e32ae34d&ei=5070

Nov 28 2000:
Tom Delay Finances Trip of 'Rioters' to Florida to Disrupt the Presidential Election Recount

Dec. 2000:
Washington Post Scrubs Photo of Florida Rioters that Shows Delays Staff

Here's the mirrorered version:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=politics/fedpage/columns/intheloop&contentId=A30170-2000Dec5¬Found=true

Feb 2001 (report on campaign 2000):
Delay's Daughter Launders $60,000 in Donations in 2000 for Daddy

http://www.amarillonet.com/stories/020701/opi_lawhnabs.shtml

January 2001:
Delay uses Corporate Slush Fund to Finance Ads Attacking Democrats Who Oppose Ashcroft's Nomination

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A9875-2001Jan17¬Found=true

April 12, 2001:
Delay Sells Meetings with Bush to Top GOP Donors

April 27 2001:
Delay Scam Targets Small Business Owners

May, 2001:
Tom Delay Brags That His Strategy Is To Kick People When they Are Down

June 2001:
Tom Delay Bilks Doctors in Boiler Room Scam

Phony 'Watchdog' Group Judicial Watch Looks Other Way as Delay Defrauds Public

July 2001:
Tom Delay, Former Exterminator, Wants to Allow Extensive and Undisclosed Use of Pesticides in Elementary Schools

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A16197-2001Jul18¬Found=true

July 2001:
Tom Delay Helps Hastert in Push to Block Patient's Bill of Rights

May, 2002:
: Media, Judicial Watch, and Congress Continue to Look other Way as Doctors are Preyed on By Delay Boiler Room Scam

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/nrcc_020502.html

January 2002:
Tom Delay Used Enron Money to Fund Political Racketeering

Feb. 2002:
Tom Delay Fights to Block Campaign Finance Reform

Feb. 2002:
Tom Delay Refuses to Return Money to Enron Employees

April 2002:
Delay Claims Only Christians Know what's best for Nation

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A18077-2002Apr19¬Found=true

http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/5518

May 16, 02:
Tom Delay Financial 'Godfather' Implicated in Mob Murder

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13134

Feb 2003:
Tom Delay Smears Firefights as "Threat to National Security"!!

May 2003:
Tom Delay Uses Homeland Security and State Police Resources to Terrorize Political Opponents

Reports Common Dreams: "State troopers have followed the Democrats wives, parents and children.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0514-07.htm

June 2003:
Delay and 15 other GOP Congresscreeps Accused of Taking Bribes from Energy Corporation seeking favors

June, 2003:
Delay Blocks Efforts to Restore Tax Cuts to Poor Families left Out of Bush Plan

August 15, 2003:
Record Shows that Democratic Efforts to Upgrade Electrical Grid to Prevent Blackouts was Ridiculed and Blocked by DELAY

http://www.thedailyenron.com/documents/20030815132640-93614.asp

October, 2003:
Memo Is Smoking Gun Proof of Tom Delay's Collusion with Enron

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/10/14/enron/index_np.html

Oct. 13 2003:
Tom Delay Thumbs His Nose at the Will of 80% of Americans And Blocks Efforts to Overturn Hated FCC Corporate Giveaway

Oct. 2003:
Bush Cowers as Delay Guts the Americorps Program

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/klein/article/0,9565,476274,00.html

Nov. 22 03:
Thug Delay Steals Medicare From the Elderly by Threatening fellow Congressfolk

The final hall of shame vote:http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.exe?year=2003&rollnumber=669 "Texas Democrats have subpoenaed House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as a witness in a lawsuit to overturn a congressional district map DeLay helped push through the Texas Legislature.

Nov. 2 03:
ow Tom Delay Engineered a Junta-style Takeover of the Texas Government

Nov. 2003:
Tom Delay Aggressively Promotes and Defends War Profiteering in Iraq

Posted by KevinSchmidtVA on September 29, 2005 at 11:27 AM

Ready for Prime Time?

After four years in office you'd think the President of the U.S. would be ready to interact with a handful of military personnel without a script. But no, not only do his questions have to be prepared, the answers need to be rehearsed as well.

This raises the question: Was the release of the rehearsal video really inadvertent, or was this vignette of the hapless chief executive made public on purpose to maintain the illusion that he's really "out of the loop" for when the indictments in the Plame investigation start coming out?

Which would you rather be--stupid or guilty of treason and ripe for impeachment?

WASHINGTON Oct 14, 2005 ? It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution.

"This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."

Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops.

As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

A brief rehearsal ensued.

"OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?"

"Captain Smith," Kennedy said.

"Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked.

"Captain Kennedy," the soldier replied.

And so it went.

"If the question comes up about partnering how often do we train with the Iraqi military who does he go to?" Barber asked.

"That's going to go to Captain Pratt," one of the soldiers said.

"And then if we're going to talk a little bit about the folks in Tikrit the hometown and how they're handling the political process, who are we going to give that to?" she asked.

Before he took questions, Bush thanked the soldiers for serving and reassured them that the U.S. would not pull out of Iraq until the mission was complete.

"So long as I'm the president, we're never going to back down, we're never going to give in, we'll never accept anything less than total victory," Bush said.

"I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said.

The president told them twice that the American people were behind them.

"You've got tremendous support here at home," Bush said.

Less than 40 percent in an AP-Ipsos poll taken in October said they approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Just over half of the public now say the Iraq war was a mistake.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said.

"I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation.

The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.

The president also got praise from the Iraqi soldier who was part of the chat.

"Thank you very much for everything," he gushed. "I like you."

On preparations for the vote, 1st Lt. Gregg Murphy of Tennessee said: "Sir, we are prepared to do whatever it takes to make this thing a success. ? Back in January, when we were preparing for that election, we had to lead the way. We set up the coordination, we made the plan. We're really happy to see, during the preparation for this one, sir, they're doing everything."

On the training of Iraqi security forces, Master Sgt. Corine Lombardo from Scotia, N.Y., said to Bush: "I can tell you over the past 10 months, we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. ? Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations."

Lombardo told the president that she was in New York City on Nov. 11, 2001, when Bush attended an event recognizing soldiers for their recovery and rescue efforts at Ground Zero. She said the troops began the fight against terrorism in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and were proud to continue it in Iraq.

"I thought you looked familiar," Bush said, and then joked: "I probably look familiar to you, too."

Paul Rieckhoff, director of the New York-based Operation Truth, an advocacy group for U.S. veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, denounced the event as a "carefully scripted publicity stunt." Five of the 10 U.S. troops involved were officers, he said.

"If he wants the real opinions of the troops, he can't do it in a nationally televised teleconference," Rieckhoff said. "He needs to be talking to the boots on the ground and that's not a bunch of captains."

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

Let's see 'em Frog Walkin'
That couple of guys
Frog Walkin'
For outin' our spies
Frog Walkin'
This scheme that they wove
Frog Walkin'
Get Scooter and Rove

Oh, my God
Will we ever know
How high these scandals reach?
Oh, my God
Does BushCo suck
What's it gonna take 'til we impeach?

Let's see 'em Frog Walkin'
They're telling us lies
Still pullin'
The wool ov'r my eyes
Nobody believes what you say
Let's see 'em Frog Walkin'
The prison's *that* way

Mister Rove
Thinks he's good
Playin' folks for a fool
Scooter, too
Right Wing media ties
Tom "the Hammer"
Ain't the only tool!
We'll see you

Frog Walkin'
You couple of guys
Frog Walkin'
For outin' our spies
Frog Walkin'
This scheme that they wove
Frog Walkin'
Get Scooter and Rove

Frog Walkin'
Bush aides all in line, yeah
Frog Walkin'
For treasonous crimes
And if the Grand Jury
Finds cause to indict
We'll see you Frog Walkin'
Your way thru the night

Let's see 'em Frog Walkin'
They're telling us lies
Still pullin'
The wool ov'r my eyes
Nobody believes what you say
Let's see 'em Frog Walkin'
The prison's *that* way

Frog Walkin' by Demetrius

Extreme Variability--updated

If I hadn't seen it before, almost three years ago now, the Omi's recent behavior would give me quite a turn.

Her doctor did warn us that her behavior was likely to be "variable" as she got on in years (now almost 98), but it was still hard to anticipate that it would compete with that of a two year old for inconsistency. One has to conclude that there are good reasons why institutional caretakers find it almost irresistible to manage with the assistance of medications that take off the edge.

In any event, the last time we went through the routine of non-response, incontinence and general resistance to efforts to ameliorate the situation, there was a good excuse--a bout with pneumonia which consumed a lot of energy for a while. As the doctor also explained, the human body has only so many energy packets and when most are dedicated to fighting an infection or some bug, there's little left for the normal routines of daily existence.

This time around there's no apparent illness or injury that accounts for the current condition. And, although I recorded the first on video tape, thinking quite honestly that the last hours might have arrived, it seems wiser this time to make a verbal record, since the video recording (with sound) isn't very good at representing the response of the observer/caretaker (me). There might just be some value in that for others who have yet to go through a similar experience.

The current event started a couple of weeks ago when we were starting to run out of the pain medication the Omi had been taking (with no change in the dosage) for over five years. Since renewing the prescription was taking some time, it seemed like a good chance to see if the medication was actually needed for pain. After a couple of days it became apparent that it wasn't. There was no increase in complaints about pains which, all along, seemed to be prompted more by psychological stress than any particular physical action, or inaction.

On the other hand, while there were no complaints about pain, there was a marked increase in physical activity, a new concern in getting new clothes and adjusting those that no longer fit, accompanied by pointed conversations of monetary assets and who owned what property. Indeed, one of those conversations started out questioning my ownership of our house and moved on to the assertion that I would have to get a lawyer because she was going to inherit the property. Which sort of made it clear that the Omi was having another role-reversal incident in which I became her mother and she became me.

Such confusion has arisen periodically. I'm used to it now, but at first it was very disconcerting to have a role-reversal, which has been present for a very long time in practice, verbally realized in this manner. Since I assume that such events are not unique, it strikes me that it must be very stressful for familial caretakers to be suddenly treated like strangers. Though I, for example, actually remember my grandmother (she was very young when her only child was born), being mistaken for her was strange, to say the least. It was difficult to know how to respond, especially since I am fully aware that the Omi never liked her mother. Or, at least, never had a good word to say about her in the last 60 years.

The increase in physical activity and apparently better balance when walking, accompanied by whoever answered her summoning bell (a regimen established to prevent further injury from falls), resulted in several independent sorties from and to the bathroom when no-one was looking or the response to her signal wasn't rapid enough. Rapid response had been a requirement for some time since she made it quite obvious in conversation with friends and strangers that she really resented being dependent on others and, indeed, "forgot" at least once or twice a week to signal a desire to walk around on her own. Indeed, whenever she perceived that she was not being attended to, she was in the habit of setting out on a stroll, even if she'd been asked about a desire to do that just five minutes before.

Actually, there was one minor constant in her behavior. It was almost certain that whatever offer of assistance or provisions she rejected (and she routinely rejected ALL offers the first time they were made), would be demanded within five or ten minutes. This was actually progress from my perspective, since it had been the Omi's life-long habit NOT to ask for any benefit or service and then to resent that it hadn't been offered. In other words, she expected everyone around her to be on the constant look-out for what she might want. Then she could pretend that she didn't want anything at all and be condescending in accepting the suggested service or gift. A delay of five or ten minutes until she would act on a suggestion is actually better.

At the beginning of this past week, after other members of the family had departed from their visit and only the spouse and I were in attendance, she took one of those solitary excursions to the bathroom and when I remonstrated with her, yet again, for risking a fall, she told me flat out that she had been accompanied by someone other than the only two people in the house. When I accused her of lying, she rejected that assertion and claimed that she had been accompanied by her dog. What's significant to me about this exchange is the rapidity with which the lie can come forth. Where most questions have to be asked three or more times before it is apparently comprehended and elicits a one-word answer, the lie just pops out. That's been apparent for some time and suggests to me that, if there has been some brain damage from a series of small strokes, the perversion of the truth into a protective lie must reside very deep in the brain.

Perhaps lying is alligned with impulsive behavior in general. I do think it's possible that much of the Omi's behavior has been impulsive (as opposed to considered) for a very long time and that what's happened recently is that the responses to impulses as well as suggestions (impulses from outside) have simply been delayed.

In any event, about 4:00 AM Tuesday I heard a huge thud and thought, incorrectly, that it had come from upstairs which I immediately checked and, finding nothing amiss, I rushed to the Omi's room and there she was, in the dark, lying on the floor where she had obviously fallen after using the commode. Her explanation for her position, heading away from her bed to the other side of the room, was that she was trying to turn on the reading light by her chair, perhaps because she hadn't found the one by her bed.

Anyway, since nothing seemed to be broken and no evidence that she had even hit her head, the spouse and I lifted her into bed. Later in the morning she rang her bell and I helped her to the commode, since she didn't seem up to walking to the bathroom. Then, she barely seemed up to walking to her chair. Or, at least, she was resistant to being helped to move in that direction and made herself into a dead weight--a trick I am used to from three years ago when being weakened by illness didn't prevent her resisting being "helped" into or out of the bed. It's a back-straining trick, I can tell you and also strains my temper. So, when I finally had her settled in her chair, I told her this wouldn't do and she answered quite clearly, "You're right, it won't do."

Having refused breakfast on Wednesday, she allowed herself to be fed chicken and rice soup at lunch. And, later in the day, she ate a chocolate cookie with a cup of coffee. And at dinner she ate a small portion of what we were having at the table and finished a chocolate pudding. Since her back seemed to be sore from the fall, I gave her some medicine for pain. The night was uneventful though I obviously slept lightly and was awakened at least five or six times by sudden sounds on the monitor. (A monitor in her room lets me hear even uneven breathing. I didn't hear her get up and fall on Tuesday because I had already got up to write downstairs).

Thursday I was able to maneuver her to her chair and assist her to the commode several times, though the sheets needed changing because of some incontenance during the night. Mostly she was unresponsive through the day and not willing to drink or eat. She did take her pills and a little liquid and allowed herself to be fed a chocolate pudding.

Friday again started out with a wet bed, a change of sheets while she sat on the commode and then, having been returned to bed, the announcement, later in the morning that "it is wet." In other words, although apparently unresponsive and almost comatose, she was able to direct a change of the sheets yet again and, as I was arranging the plastic mattress protector, her hand reached to help smoothe it out. All evidence, in my mind, that attention hadn't left her entirely. Also, she did respond with a "good morning" to my initial greeting, almost before she caught herself.

Since two loads of laundry seemed enough for one day, the spouse went and got some adult diapers, which would keep both her and the bed drier.
It doesn't seem to have been needed over night and, indeed, there was sufficient bladder control yesterday to make use of the commode when I sat her on it. Putting on the diaper seems to cause some distress (scrunched up face and one or two "ows") but no active resistance or dead weight (how do people do that?).

Having taken almost no food or drink during the day, she did accept a cup of water, which she held in her hand and drank on her own. Then, as I prepared her for the night, she asked if I couldn't "help her" but wouldn't specify in what way. I suspect, but can't prove, that she wants help in dying now, while she's still aware and can keep track of how it goes. This would be consistent for her periodically expressed desire to have the crematory people come to take her away. Indeed, over the last six months she's spent many a day apparently waiting to be picked up and taken off. When a visitor has arrived during those time, she's always been disappointed that they weren't coming for her.

I used to think that this expectation grew out of her experience as a ballet dancer in multiple operas where the heroine dies most spectacularly and with lots of pomp and circumstance. Explanations that that's not how it happens in real life don't seem to register.

Anyway, that's were we are at now. No response to my greeting this morning, but she did take her pills with water before going back to sleep.
That's actually a normal pattern, so there's no clue as to how the day will proceed. Just wanted to get this down before I forget. Forgetting is not a matter of age, by the way. I noticed the same thing about my awareness of the development of the first two children and took to writing things down about the third. Those writings are lost. Perhaps in the age of the internet my musings will fare better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sunday

Forgot to mention that a half piece of bread with butter and jam went down well on Friday. But, after that, she's not been willing to take any food. This morning, the first swallow of water went down without trouble. The next caused her to choke and cough.

The adult diapers are working well, especially now that I've learned to put a new one in place before removing the old. Something I should have remembered from many years ago--removing the covering triggers a flow.

A sponge bath this morning elicited no reaction and no resistance to being moved around a bit either. Sometimes her fingers tug at the pajama, the covers or even an eye lid, but these movements seem not purposeful. When her eyes are open, there's no recognition of me as a person--but that's been the case for a long time now. For months and months I've been a stranger and, in a moment of apparent clarity, the Omi explained that she had forgotten she was ever a mother. Not surprising since she never behaved like one. (When she got her first dog after moving to Gainesville, I realized she treated it just as she'd treated me as a child. And when it got to be too much trouble, she had it put to sleep. The current one, too, was destined to be dispatched when she was unable to put out it's food.) I. obviously, simply got shunted off to be taken care of by other people--her parents, her housemates, boarding schools.

While I've concluded that she's always lacked impulse control, I wonder how that fits in with planning ahead. It probably doesn't. Rather, it probably accounts for a life full of actions that were later regretted--and for having relocated on average every two years before this last decade.

* * * * * *

Monday update---

Not very variable yesterday. The Omi was largely unresponsive but looked to be at peace. She made one effort to speak, but gave up after four or five words and went back into her closed eyes, mouth open state. When I changed her diaper, she did lift her leg somewhat. So, it doesn't seem like she's comatose.

The spouse is going to looking into the acquisition of a coffin today, as the Omi repeatedly requested. She's never forgotten that he did that service for a neighbor about forty years ago and wanted to have the same done for her. A strange kind of jealousy, if you ask me, only wanting something because somebody else had it. But there it is--it's a pattern that probably accounts for frequently not liking what one's actually got.

That's sort of to be expected if you taylor your desires to other people's tastes.

7:00 AM

Quite talkative this morning--telling me she can't walk. Which I guess was meant to explain why the diaper was half undone. She is, however, able to raise and lower her legs and when I helped her to sit up to drink, she propped herself on her elbows. So, not as helpless as one might be led to think.
I told her she would have to eat something today, since it doesn't look like the end is nigh. Also reminded her of that fellow in New Orleans who went nineteen days without food or drink and survived. Since the Omi has never been a consumer of a lot of liquids, dehydration is probably not as great a risk as for some.
Before she had her fall on Tuesday, I had been warning repeatedly that if she fell, she would probably end up confined to bed and that she probably wouldn't like that. Perhaps I was wrong about the last part.

11:30 AM---
Well, the Omi ate about a 1/4 of her usual portion of hot cereal cooked in milk for breakfast and, after a morning nap, awoke to observed that she is doing OK. She wanted to get up to use the commode and I made up some chicken broth with an egg of which she consumed a whole bowl. She likes being fed. So, variability persists.

7:30 PM---
Chocolate pudding in the afternoon and mashed potatoes in the evening, plus a couple of cups of tea are a pretty good sign that the appetite is returning. Also, orders are being given. Whatever the problem was, other than a head-strong determination that the end was going to be willed, I don't know. All I can keep repeating is that's not how it works.

When the eyes are clear, skin color is good, all the senses are functioning and a person can eat and drink without any problem, it's unlikely that the end of life has arrived.

```````````````````````````````````````````````````
Wednesday, September 21

Yesterday was a fairly "normal" day, other than the Omi prefers to stay in bed most of the day. She consumed a bowl of hot cereal, with milk and butter, for breakfast; chicken soup with rice for lunch, followed by a chocolate pudding. In the afternoon, there was tea (three cups) and a bit of cookie which she partook of by herself from a tray. Dinner had to be fed to her, even though a small potato dumpling with chicken sauce should have been tempting. More pudding served as a chaser and then, of course, more tea before she settled down for the night.

This morning was cheerful, perhaps because the sun is shining. She got up to use the commode and stood and took a few steps. There doesn't seem to be a physical problem, only a new level of fear since she fell last week.

I've prepared a summary letter for the local doctor, inviting him to make a house call and see his patient for himself. It's being edited and will be delivered to the office later today. Allegedly, the doctor doesn't do email, but he does make house calls. So, we'll see.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 22---

Well, it turns out that it isn't enough to sign up with a primary care doctor. If you're not sick and don't make regular visits to the office, they discard the records. At least that 's what the local doctor claimed until I pressed him. Then he admitted that the files were in storage. But, since he no longer makes house calls (this is now 2005 and not 2003) and he's going out of town next week, he really can't be bothered and suggested we contact a Hospice association in the area.

Which seems like a reasonable solution, since they'll plug her into their medicare program, do an evaluation and then, when the time comes, issue a death certificate without having to call law enforcement or the Medical Examiner.

Someone is supposed to come tomorrow. There doesn't seem to be any urgency. The Omi ate a whole eight ounce serving of hot cereal cooked in milk and made tasty with a pat of butter and cinnamon/sugar. Then she drank a cup of tea by herself (cereal has to be spooned into her).

Arms and legs are quite active. It wouldn't surprise me if she got tired of being in bed in the near future. She appears to tire easily, but that may be an act. Don't mean to seem heartless, but, unless I am grossly mistaken, the signs of an imminent demise don't seem to be there. She's just always liked being catered to and cared for.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 24

Nurse Fran from hospice came as promised and we are all signed up to get a weekly visit from a nurse (to take the vitals), respite workers if we both need to get a way for a while, and someone who will "pronounce" her when it becomes appropriate.

The appetite continues fairly good. In addition to her morning cereal, she consumed two containers of baby fruit medleys, a half piece of bread with butter and jam, and a bowl of mashed potatoes with grave. Tea and coffee in half cup servings. There seems to be some difficulty actually putting lip to cup--so, a lot of dribbling. In the evening I just gave her tea with a syringe, but I don't think she liked that very much.
I'll have to plan better and make sure she's still propped up when tea time comes around.

I can see why people get hospital beds. Trying to do things in a bent-over position is quickly painful. I have to remember to kneel. Since she's still willing to get out of bed from time to time to use the commode, I'm not keen on having a mechanical bed.

The Omi's interaction with the nurse was interesting. She wanted to know where she had met her before--a conversation starter she's picked up lately. Told she'd never met her, she wanted reassurance that the nurse had nothing to do with me. Also, as she was being examined (blood pressure, heart, lung, etc.) she looked quite distressed and seemed glad to have us leave her be when we went off to sign a bunch of papers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

September 27

Yesterday was, on the whole uneventful. Efforts to remove her depends garment were entirely successfu but the pajama top only got unsnapped. So, the sheets had to be changed again though the cut-open plastic bag actually worked good at protecting the mattress. So, I think I'll stick with those rather than getting another pad with a plastic back.

A social worker made a visit to inquire about additional help we might need. I might take them up on an occasional respite worker while Puddy is away. They have to be scheduled two weeks in advance, so it's not help that can be gotten on short notice. Omi expressed no interest in this visitor.

She'd had her normal breakfast and a small amount of prune juice so about mid-day a sit on the potty was successful. I used to think that the nose gets used to noxious smells, but have been noticing that they actually recur on their own when the occasion is long passed. So, I wonder if that's one of the lingering negatives of the rescue operations in New Orleans that will stay with people, along with the horrendous images, for a long time after they return home. A plug-in air freshener does do a good job, however.

We had some conversation. At bedtime she told me she was going to die and earlier she wanted to know how long she was going to be as she is now. While I don't have any answers, I did point out that the latter is somewhat up to her. She can remain mostly uncommunicative, or she can talk and make it easier to care for her. This morning, when I moved her to the potty, she made herself stiff as a board and hooked her foot around the chair leg. When I remonstrated that this habit of making herself stiff was not helpful, she wanted to know what she could do different. The transition back to the bed was a lot easier since she made an effort to support herself. Perhaps the reason her ballet career was cut short was because she could not be partnered. Any effort to move her prompt immediate resistance.

Oh, yes, I've got a new use for duct tape. Just one strip across the front of the depends kept it securely in place and the sheets didn't get wet. Of course, ripping the duct-tape off destroys the depends, but the tabs have so little stickum that they can't be reused once they're undone, anyway. I did hear efforts to rearrange things on the monitor over-night, so I'm pretty sure the duct tape gets the credit for keeping the bed dry.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
September 29

Yesterday the duct tape didn't work all that well. Didn't make it tight enough. so she was able to slip out. But, no time to actually wet the bed, until later in the day when I hadn't duct-taped her anyway. So, one change of sheets during which she had to sit on the commode, not happily but finally compliant.

In response to questions, the Omi told the Puddy that she knows who he is, but couldn't remember his name. Then she added that he's NOT part of the family, rather gratuitously. That she has no family is an illusion she likes to hold on to.

Otherwise the day passed uneventfully. As did the night. This morning she preferred not to have breakfast right away. The Depends hadn't come off and she was able to let me know when she needed to use the commode.
Usual breakfast and some chocolate pudding for lunch. And so it goes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
October 1, 2005

The hospice nurse called yesterday and offered to come by, but there wasn't anything to see. The Omi was more responsive to questions, seemed to understand when told about a phone call from her "cousin" Elfriede, but refused to get out of bed except to use the commode.

Then, last night about 9:30 I woke to the sound of tearing and rustling. So, I went down to have a look and she was busy trying to remove the duct-tape reinforced Depends. She'd also unsnapped her pajama top. I fastened the snaps and told her to leave the Depends alone and go to sleep. Which she did. This morning everything was still in place.

I got her up so I could change the sheet because Puddy was looking for laundry to do. She didn't want to eat then and went back to sleep until almost eleven, when I fixed her cereal with butter and cinnamon sugar. Although she said "Enough" about half-way through, she did eat the whole eight ounces. Last night she had mashed potatoes with sour-cream gravy and finished her pudding, so I'm figuring she's not going to starve. Dehydration doesn't seem to be a problem either. She's drinking her prune juice, water, and tonic. Tea seems to be no longer preferred. When I fix it, she usually has enough with half a cup.

Today, she's been unwilling to get up and spent most of the day sort of sleeping. She's not as alert as yesterday, but not totally befuddled either.
Somehow I get the feeling that time is of no significance any longer. Will see how dinner goes. She's not had her fruit for the day, so that will be the minimum.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4:30 AM a baleful plaint came over the intercom "I'm all wet."

Sure enough, duct-tape doesn't work if the Depends isn't on tight enough--an almost comotose person can wiggle herself out and then, of course, find herself in a wet bed that quickly gets cold when the blanket is lifted to inspect. The heat has been going on at night, so you know we're no longer enjoying summer temps.

The "almost comotose" is obviously an exaggeration. There's no inability to communicate and my repeated assertions that she only has to speak to be heard obviously registered. 4:30 isn't a bad time to get up. So............

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It being Sunday, it was sort of appropriate for the Omi to have brunch about 10:30 in the morning. But, when it was ready, she announced a need to use the commode and then half-way through the eight ounce bowl she announced "no more." I insisted that since this was brunch she would have to eat it all and she did.

She spent most of the afternoon propped up in a sort of sitting position. When I popped in a couple of hours later, she had pulled the blanket up to her chin--to hide that she had yet again started the undressing process, though the Depends, tabs undone, was still in place. I resorted to a piece of duct tape. Asked, the Omi asserted she doesn't know why she tries to get undressed--that she wouldn't if she did.

Having refused anything to eat or drink, she accepted the offer of the Sunday paper and actually looked at it briefly before returning it, all folded up, to where I had placed it. (She isn't aware that I can see her from the kitchen). When I went to retrieve the paper, she suddenly asked if I have any money and suggested that, if I did I could get away. I asked her if she wanted money and she said no. I assured her that I had no desire to leave since it's my house and my land. But she insisted that my "friends" (the other people in the house) are bad. When I reassured her that there is no-one here but she and I and the dog and Julian, she said "I don't trust Julian." Since this is a true statement, I merely asserted that he's my husband; that I trust him and love him and that he's proven trustworthy in the forty years I've been married to him. She repeated "forty years" with some astonishment, but her facial expression clearly dismissed the importance of that fact. Anyway, she concluded that she doesn't trust Julian because I'm her daughter--clear evidence that her mind is not totally gone, since that's a well-worn explanation for all kinds of things.

So, being in a somewhat confrontational mood, I told her that I knew full well why she doesn't trust Julian. It's because she doesn't trust any men, never has. In fact, she probably didn't come to love her brother until after he was dead--at barely twenty. She didn't dispute that assertion.
When you come right down to it, although she's trusted women for short periods, her relationships with them, except through the mail over long distance, didn't ever last long either. She doesn't like other people, probably because she doesn't really see them as distinct from herself.

Meanwhile I'd got a note from our doctor in Georgia who suggested that sudden mental changes tend to alert him to some sort of flu or infection that doesn't have normal symptoms in the very old. I was able to assure him that the shifting mental states have actually become the norm since last spring and all the physical systems are going on as before.

Tea in the afternoon was accepted, but only a half cup which she held and drank from by herself. And wiped her mouth when some dribbled down her chin. Supper was just a jar of toddler food, followed by chocolate pudding which she didn't finish because she "doesn't like it." Rejecting food is usually a sign of feeling better. Her whole life, "I don't eat much" has been a mantra, often in the context of launching into a critique of others who are "too fat because they eat too much." I only mention this to make the point that we seem to have a tendency to over-look when people tell lies about themselves. Perhaps because we don't care enough to call them on it.

Think of people describing themselves as "compassionate conservatives."

The end of the day was generally uneventful and I, having been up since 4:30 was glad to retire early as well. Then about 9:30 I was awakened by a plaintiff "I can't sleep" on the monitor. When I went down to inquire as to the reason (other than that it's actually her normal pattern to wake up as night falls), she explained that she was so worried about Charlotte and the three little children and Julian and the cancer. So, of course, I told her that nobody has cancer, nobody's dying and she should just go back to sleep. Repeated that a couple of times, turned out the light and left. And that was that. Not unlike dealing with a little kid's nightmares.

But, this one could probably use a bit of explication because there is some truth in it. Julian had a conversation with her not long ago in which he related that Charlotte's uncle, Tom, has cancer and is expected to die soon. (For some reason, he thought the knowledge that someone else was dying would cheer her up). This bit of information obviously resurrected the memories of our friend Robert's wife, Mika, who indeed had three babies in quick succession and then died of breast cancer, leaving Robert a widower with a huge task. Now, the Omi never liked Mika and held it against her that she died--probably thought she shouldn't have been so reckless as to have three babies. After all, she herself had stopped at one.
In any event, the Omi doesn't like our Charlotte either, probably because Charlotte insults her sensibilities by being heavy and by being nice to her. The Omi does not like people who disprove her assessment of them. So, her supposed concern about something that's not actually happening is fake. But then she's been spinning a scenario about Charlotte leaving and my having to take care of the boys for some time. She's been sure that Charlotte has been about to run away, because that's what she's wanted her to do. That this way of thinking is actually evidence of reason is probably weird. But there it is. If you have the right assumptions, it all makes sense.

Perhaps I'm wrong in seeing a relationship between an old woman's deranged thinking and the way George the Lesser is going on about Iraq, but it sounds familiar to me.
* * *

Well, so we had breakfast at 10:30 and then around noon puddy noticed a lot of activity under the covers and we discovered that she was trying to rid herself of the Depends. When I asked her what she was doing, she said "nothing," so, of course, I called her on it and she challenged me to define lying. Eventually, she decided she needed to use the commode and I helped her get up. Success. Ha.

Then back to bed and no interest in anything to eat or drink. About an hour ago there was whimpering and sighing and, of course, evidence that she had again decided to disrobe (funny euphemism). She claimed she wanted to be able to cry. But didn't know why. So, I told her that her problem was that she was getting bored with being in bed and if that was the case she should just get up. No response.

A suggestion that she have tea elicited a "maybe" and when I said that wasn't good enough, she said "yes." So, I went off to fix it and when I came back she announced that she had to get up and did, with just a little help. She's had trouble getting her feet to move for some time--has to concentrate on making them do their thing. But they did. She walked across the room and sat in her easy chair and then, after I had poured the tea, with a little cognac added, she demonstrated perfect hand-eye co-ordination in bringing the cup from the tea-cart to drink and returning it without a spill.

So, it was largely an act. Though I may be proved wrong and tomorrow she might indeed be dead. I did tell her that just lying in bed was not a prescription for hastening the end. And, of course, it's entirely boring for everyone. I'm thinking that perhaps I should restart the alprazolam and see if that improves her mood. She's obviously got no pains, so there's no point in giving her the hydrocodone.

Variability continues.

Brought her to the table for dinner, after she'd sat up for about three hours. When the news came on the TV, she soon pronounced herself "tired" and didn't eat much dinner. She retired for the night without any fuss, though about midnight I was awakened by a ripping sound--didn't seem enough to do any real damage, so I didn't bother to check. Instead, I got up to write up something on nuclear weapons in Iraq. (Seems that a goodly aray in the Eastern Hemisphere has been a goal since John F. Kennedy ordered them taken out of Turkey. Where they are back, by the way).

For some reason the brain go to thinking about people being adaptable to new environments and how you'd think that someone who keeps moving from place to place must be super adaptable. Not necessarily. The Omi seems to be a good example of an individual who doesn't adapt to her environment at all. Wherever she lands, the environment doesn't matter, because she's entirely oblivious to it. Which would explain why she's always headed in the wrong direction. It isn't that she doesn't look where she's going; she doesn't see where she is.

All of these lifetime patterns just seem to be exacerbated in old age.

****************
Yesterday was a no-get-out-of-bed day, except for a very successful session on the commode. Unfortunately, I forgot to re-apply a Depends and the sheets had to be changed later in the day.

My communication that I would be going out in the evening to my monthly meeting was well received, except for the question "are you doing to take the dog with you?" which suggested that it wasn't really understood.

Anyway, she was still awake when I got home about 9:00PM. At 12:30 I was awakened by the sound of ripping plastic. Went down and remonstrated and told her to go back to sleep (she hadn't got the duct tape undone); 5:30 AM another wake-up by the sound of ripping plastic. This time it was almost all off and I replaced it with a new one. Sleep returned for most of the morning until there was a pitiable "help me" about ten thirty. I removed the rest of the Depends she hadn't managed to rip, put her on the commode and then guided her to her easy chair where I fed her breakfast. Sleep seems to have returned.

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

Friday, October 7th

After a few hours of sitting up the Omi resorted to her bell and demanded to be returned to her bed, where she spent the rest of the day and passed a good night. i say that because there was no ripping during the night and the sleep was sufficiently refreshing to allow her to sit up by herself, get out of bed with just a little help and negotiate the distance to her easy-chair with a minimum of support. Then she had a second glass of juice and consumed breakfast at the regular time.

Still think the Omi is one of those people who never knows when she's hungry and, perhaps as a consequence, doesn't really like to eat. That is, the food doesn't taste good and, if she doesn't actively dislike it, she wolfs it down. If this characteristic had been accompanied by a low level of activity, it's likely she would have continued obese, as she clearly was as a young child. At some point she obviously became hyper-active and hardly noticed how much or little she consumed. Mood swings were probably related to whether or not she'd been eating right, but probably went unrecognized since she never stayed in one place long enough.

Then, of course, during most of her adult life she had someone else cook for her. First, while she still lived at home it was her mother. When she moved out, she hired a house-keeper and/or frequently dined out with friends. During the war and her stay in Austria there wasn't much choice beyond the pap one could concoct out of grains and milk (which she actually likes to this day).

I suspect that one of the most burdensome consequences of being married, when her husband finally came home from the war, was the expectation that she would cook for him. By the time she arrived in Los Angeles, I was old enough to take care of the preparations. So, when she got home from work, all she had to do was turn on the stove and then serve it up.
Then I got sent off to boarding school and I have no idea what she did for meals. The prospect of being able to re-create the life-style she enjoyed in Germany before the war--i.e. hiring a housekeeper and maid--was certainly one of the main attractions for moving on to Chile after only four years (during which time she lived at three addresses in LA and one in San Francisco). Unfortunately, the household help in Chile was unreliable and I have to admit to applying extreme pressure to get us out of there, so I wasn't stuck with taking up the slack. Once in New York, I was sent off to boarding school and then, during high school, cooking and keeping house became my responsibility almost exclusively. My preference. I couldn't stand her cooking and I couldn't stand dedicating half the weekend to cleaning house, when I could do it by myself in a couple of hours after school.

In a sense, taking good care of my aged parent is an act of revenge, a refutation
of the claim that being responsible for another person was just too much work.

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

October 8---Nurse Nancy paid a visit yesterday. The Omi greeted her with "And what can I do for you?" When I tried to explain that the nurse had come to look after her, she observed that she wasn't much to look at. Nurse Nancy did not comprehend that none of this conversation was relevant to her visit.

Anyway, the Omi's vital signs were not significant of anything amiss. She spent the rest of the day in her easy chair and had dinner at the table. Today, however, she is refusing to get out of bed. Breakfast wasn't accepted until near 11:00 AM. Of course, the persistent rain may be depressing.
******************

Sundays, for some reason, are always downers. Even when the children come to visit, the Omi tends not to be pleased. In any event, yesterday was still dreary, after Saturday's flooding rains, and the Omi elected not to leave her bed at all--not even to use the commode. I had said she needed a hair wash and she didn't seem at all keen for that.

This morning there's still the same disinclination to get up, though there's no apparent physical impairment. The prune juice went down well and she "helped" change her Depends by raising her bottom at strategic times.
We'll have to have a sponge bath later in the morning. A hair wash may have to wait. Getting anything washed hasn't been an automatic process for months.

2:30 PM--Tea suddenly seemed attractive after a very late breakfast and she responded to the suggestion that she get up to drink it in her chair by actually getting out of bed and walking across the room with very little help.
She did have a bit of pain medicine just before noon. Changing weather may account for sore arms. Or maybe it's just old age. I have a foot that hurts every morning lately. Before that it was a leg. It's always something.

*********

Well, the sponge bath got delayed until yesterday--a day she refused to get out of bed and just barely ate her cereal, fruit and a little pudding. Tea went down slowly.

Then about 10:30 at night I was awakened by cries for "help." She explained she was in a mess, but aside from her pajama being unsnapped, I found nothing out of sorts and told her to go back to sleep. More strange noises around midnight when I found her half sitting up trying to dislodge a big pillow from the corner of her bed. Took that away and counseled more sleep. Which worked.

This morning, Wesnesday, was uneventful but also unresponsive. Then, about 9:30 she was suddenly sitting up, obviously ready to get out of bed. She used the commode and then decided to sit in her easy chair for breakfast.

She does that. Spends a couple of days flat on her back and then suddenly she's up like a jack-in-the-box. Took some notice of the dog today.

***********

Thursday was change the bed day, so I rousted the Omi about nine-thirty and she had breakfast in her chair. Stayed up until mid-afternoon and even had a look at the paper (with her reading glasses).

Otherwise uneventful. Getting in and out of bed is not a big production even though the muscles in the calves are shrinking from lack of use. Need to get her up and down more often.

Friday we had a visit from Nurse Fran with the Hospice. This time she got to see Omi up and communicating--somewhat. Just before the nurse arrived, the Omi had complained of a head-ache (a funny one) and then she said she had lost feeling in her fingers. So, I pinched one and she pulled her hand back and we both laughed about the fact that there was obviously some feeling there.

Shared the story with Nurse Fran. If they doubted my prediction that there was a good chance she would rally, I think I'm making believers out of them. A couple of times now, after getting up or down, the Omi has complained of feeling nauseous. But, it never last more than about five minutes--hardly time to go get a pan.

Thoughts of the Day

These are rather random responses to economic issues:

Let me suggest that the use of the word "entitlement" is probably not helpful. Republicans like it, as they like the word "elite," because it suggests that the people being referred to consider themselves or are considered to be somehow better than everyone else. So, those who are "entitled" or "elite" are perceived to be more than equal and properly resented.

Indeed, when these elementary concepts are compared to the principle of equality, the proponents of "entitlements" come off as hypocrites. For some reason, the point that "entitlements" are merely the practical consequence of citizens actually getting the fruits of our commitment to equal rights (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) is never even discussed.

Perhaps "fruits of our equal rights" would be a more useful and accurate phrase to describe what we are after. After all, an equal right to starve or freeze to death isn't worth much.

@@@@@@@@

At the moment the rationale for reducing the reward for labor is the supposed competitive pressure from cheaper labor overseas, but that's because the real reason would not be well received.

The real reason is the basic principle (prejudice, if you will) of economic science which holds that man is basically lazy and must be forced to work by making it difficult for him to sustain himself otherwise. From that perspective, a rising share in the rewards of productive enterprise will depress the worker's effort and is to be avoided at all costs. If that involves the workers' share being stolen, that's ok.

This pessimistic perspective on human nature accounts in large part for the designation of economics as the "dismal science." The reason it never achieves a higher level of accuracy in making economic predictions, it thinks, is the result of man's flawed being which keeps undermining the models the experts come up with. That their basic assumptions might be mistaken doesn't occur to them, probably because the negative estimate of the ordinary man is in accord with the presumption that because man is evil (lazy) it is good to tell him what to do. Economic science reinforces a basic predilection for telling others what to do and man's iniquity justifies it.

If one were to assume that man is naturally inclined to do good, then it would be wrong to force him to do anything, wouldn't it. The authoritarian personality must assume the worst about human nature.

Kikeriki! Kikikerikih!!

For Whom the Cock Crows

Press Silence on Impeachment

The corporate media in the United States can hardly claim to fill a journalistic role, anymore. The first duty of a real newsperson is to ask questions. But the corporate press can?t bring itself to ask even the most obvious questions, including on issues that are important to a high proportion of the public. When we refer to the corporate media, we?re also talking about the major polling organizations, that work hand in glove with the leading newspapers and broadcast outfits.

To date, only one pollster, Zogby International, has inquired about public opinion regarding the impeachment of George Bush. That was four months ago. Zogby found that 42 percent of respondents would favor impeachment if Bush "did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq." Other polls show that something around a majority of Americans are now convinced that Bush and his crew did, indeed, not tell the truth. The implication is clear: if the corporate media would raise the issue of popular opinion on impeachment, they would find evidence for strong public support. But only Zogby raised the issue, and even they refuse to ask the question again unless somebody pays them to do so. This, as Bush?s polling numbers continue to fall, indicating that there is probably more support for impeachment now than there was back in June.

This corporate media abrogation of responsibility stands in sharp contrast to the frenzy of impeachment discussion to which President Bill Clinton was subjected, less than a decade ago. And Clinton was only accused of bad personal behavior ? not of starting a war under false pretenses. We are also reminded of the meekness of the corporate media when President Ronald Reagan employed blatantly illegal means to wage war against Nicaragua, repeatedly lying to the congress in the process. The reason is simple: corporate media is just that ? corporate, and corporations prefer Republicans. Corporate owners actively discourage real journalism, lest it threaten their fellows among the rich and powerful. Instead, we get quipsters on cable and pure political hacks like Judith Miller at the New York Times. The market for real journalists has virtually disappeared in the U.S . Journalism schools at universities now share the same department as public relations schools. The difference between the two has blurred to the point of virtual nonexistence.

Thus, an eminently impeachable president whom a near-majority of Americans believe should be held accountable for lying, gets off scot-free in the media. A coalition of anti-war groups is now raising the money to hire a polling outfit to ask the question that the press and pollsters should be asking on their own: should George Bush be impeached?

In the United States, you can?t get news or an accurate account of public opinion, unless you pay for it. Journalism is all but extinct. For Radio BC, I?m Glen Ford.

You can visit the Radio BC page to listen to any of our audio commentaries voiced by BC Co-Publisher and Editor-in-Chief, Glen Ford. We publish the text of the radio commentary each week along with the audio program.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/radio_bc/100605/100605_radio_bc_text.html

The End

THIS IS HOW MAX UND MORITZ ENDED UP

from the humorous pen of wbusch

Lust for Power--2

What makes Bush and his cronies evil is their lust for power. That's because power, to be felt, needs to cause injury or harm to someone.

"Max und Moritz" tricked their teacher

The lust for power is perhaps most evident in their approach to the law. Instead of looking upon the law as an instrument of social harmony and compromise, the Bush cronies, from Rove to Roberts and Miers, count on the law to coerce and restrict individual freedom and autonomy, to deny human rights, and to strictly limit the individual rights identified in the Constitution.

Evidence for this attitude can be found both in the Roberts ruling to permit the torture and physical abuse of captives, who happen not to be American citizens, and in Bush's obvious delight in the prospect of incinerating suspected terrorists with "hellfire" missiles. Indeed, the definition of almost any destructive force, natural or man-made, as an opportunity, is entirely consistent with the belief that punishment is good.

And it's not inconsistent with a proclaimed commitment to Christianity either. That's because, although Jesus Christ proclaimed a gospel of love to all mankind, man continues to be born in a sinful state. That is, man retains a sense of autonomy, of individual interest and intrinsic worth. And that's not good. Indeed, whatever an individual does of his own volition is bad. Because good is doing what someone else demands. Obedience, regardless of the actual consequence of any particular act, is what makes it good.

Which is why it's important for Bush to assert that he's just carrying out God's orders. It doesn't matter how many people get maimed or injured or killed. Because he's doing the will of God, being obedient, his behavior is good. What looks like an upside-down world actually isn't, if you start with the right prejudice.

"Prejudice" is the appropriate term, even though to most people it means a negative attitude towards some thing or person that has no basis in fact. But, in actuality, prejudice is just a judgement that one makes BEFORE any factual evidence comes in, usually as the result of an inherited belief. And that's exactly what informs the thinking of these lustful people--a belief that man is born evil (selfish) and must be forced and restrained by the law to do what he should (obey others).

That this prejudice about evil human nature meshes so nicely with the impulses of those who wish to control him is not accidental. In fact, the impulse to control others probably came first and the rationalization to justify doing what one would not want done to oneself came later.

Obviously, this perspective is not unique to Bush and his cronies. In western societies it's been around as long as Plato. That it conflicts with what western religions teach can be easily dismissed with the explanation that the goodness of man is a goal (often not achieved until he's dead) not a fact. And therefore punishment is not only appropriate but deserved.

It is this final rationalization--that the injury and harm inflicted on others in the interest of demonstrating power is actually deserved by the victims--which serves to rule out any sense of guilt that might inhibit such behavior. Indeed, the goodness of the awful deeds is derived not just from obedience but from obligation--the obligation to mete out punishment to those who deserve it. Which, since "everybody's guilty of something," is virtually without limits.

When you come right down to it, the lust for power is a good thing. People are bad and need to be punished and somebody's got to do it. So the people who wield the power to injure are performing a valuable service, even as they get their jollies observing other people's pain and distress. (Which may actually explain an apparent inability by those in power to respond to a natural catastrophe like Katrina expeditiously--first the distress had to be adequately tasted and savored so the responding power could be maximized). Those who are saved simply get to suffer less.

If Bush and his cronies were simply interested in accumulating wealth, we'd be a lot better off. Because, however much wealth is created, it has a limit. Not to mention that most people can actually manage quite well without it. The amount of injury that can be inflicted on other people, including those that aren't even born yet, is vitually unlimited. Until, of course, the lust for power leads to the unleashing of weapons that can exterminate all humans and most other living things. We used to worry about nuclear weapons falling into the hands of evil people. What shall we do to protect ourselves against people who consider it good to do others harm?

Chicken Liver Pate

For those who make lots of chicken soup (everybody should) and don't know what to do with all that chicken fat, here's a recipe that's quick and good.

Ingredients

1 lb chicken livers
2 large yellow onions
1/3 cup chicken fat (removed from chilled broth)
2 hard boiled eggs
1 tsp salt
pepper to taste

Sautee the chicken livers and chopped onion in the fat until the onions are golden and the livers no longer pink. Put liver/onion mix through coarse food grinder, along with the boiled eggs. Gently mix in salt and pepper and refrigerate until cold. Spread on saltines or french bread and enjoy.

Holly's Chicago Adventure

Holly Jensen reports irregularly about her adventures with DFA and the DNC.

Chicago DFA Fundraiser on Oct. 7th

The fundraiser was held at Wilhelm & Conlon Public Strategies office located on the 22nd floor above the Chicago Civic Opera House. It was at the same location as the last two DFA events so I didn?t enter the office with an opened mouthed, country bumpkin look and I was able to park closer than Sears tower knowing now that I could still find my car without looking up at the tallest building to direct me back.

The magnificent city office still had the great view, and again had Jim Dean but this time I was not so distracted that I was unable to absorb what was happening and I actually had enough nerve to get into some excellent conversation with other attendees.

I was greeted by the wife of Atty. Conlon. She took my coat and gave me my nametag. I always appreciate nametags because I am horrible at names. I was early as usual so there were only a few in the office. I spotted Jim Dean from across the room and he immediately came up with an outreached hand, saying, ?Holly, I am so glad you could make it.? I first thought, YES he really does remember me, until I looked down and saw my big nametag with HOLLY JOHNSON. Well I still want to believe that after 3 times, I might be imprinting some memory on Mr. Dean?s brain. I told him I was very happy to come and support DFA.

Remembering how Jim says he rarely talks to Howard, I asked him if he knew that he missed his brother by only one week and that Howard was having a DNC fundraiser in Chicago next Friday. Jim said yes and this happens regularly and that once events were scheduled on the same day in California and they had to reschedule at the last minute. He laughed and said. ?But I know mine would be better attended than his.? DFI founder, Eric Davis, joined us and said he meant to bring a picture of a baby named Dean after Howard. Jim went on to tell the story how someone was so inspired by Howard Dean that they named their newborn baby, Dean. Jim laughed in his gravely voice and then added that they didn?t choose Howard because their last name was Sterns.
After Jim moved on to greet others, Eric, did a quick update on the present state of DFI and we knew we would have to catch up on more things before the night was over.

This event was billed as a high-end fundraiser with a minimal cost of $250. This was enough to intimidate me in to buying a new suit or at least have a good excuse to buy one. There was about an hour of schmoozing, which before politics, would have been the most painful experience possible for me. But knowing that these people felt the same way about Howard Dean and they understand the need to ?Take Back Our Country,? it enabled me to be energized to meet these like-minded people.

The White Sox play-off game was in the background and it definitely distracted from the topic of conversation. An occasional hoop or howl could be heard. What was great about this group was the variety of ages. The youngest were in their mid-twenties and the oldest were in the late sixties. My first conversation was with a young woman who was newly hired by a competing law firm located across the street. She was interested in civil law and politics; encouraging indeed. We were joined by a few other young people who rattled off their Chicago addresses. Most were amazed that I came all the way from Rockford. Living out in the sticks usually does raise a few questions. I had a lively talk with a fellow baby boomer, antiwar activist and we discussed our frustration with the Democratic Party and its lack of policy on the war.

I can?t brag about the food and drinks. I remember my mom going to $100 plate Republican fundraisers in the sixties and the cookies and bottled water at this fundraiser was a poor second. My husband reminded me ?It IS suppose to be fundraiser.? So I am hoping all the money went to DFA.

Familiar faces of DFIers such as Lali, and Sandra were a welcome sight and putting faces on people such DFI webmaster William M. was also enjoyable. They updated me about what their local DFA linkups were doing. This always inspires me to work harder at my meetup. Sandra updated me about Fran and Toscha and how they are stepping down from their previous active roll as organizers. I find myself missing these familiar activists. I know people?s lives change but I still miss their energies. I always hope there will be others ready to step up to take their turn.

Jim Dean stood in the middle of the room and gave his talk about DFA. He re-emphasized the DFA?s goals of supporting candidates, educating activists and supporting the growth of local grassroots groups. He talked about how he hopes DFA will continue to grow into all congressional districts and how amazingly the groups are growing strong in traditional Republican strongholds. He said that he knows there is debate between groups about supporting issues vs. candidates but he knows all areas don?t have upcoming elections and that groups have the choice of picking what is important to them. He told how proud he was of groups meeting with their local congressman. He then stated that some upcoming, targeted issues would include the Iraq War.

Jim then bravely opened up for questions, and people fired them away. The fellow antiwar activist who had attended the rally in DC stated her anger at DFA for not backing this rally. I had the same question myself. To tell you the truth, I can?t remember what the answer was but I was not real reassured. Others went on about their frustration with the Democratic Party in general. Jim was unable to speak for the DNC nor for his brother. Discussion moved on to the importance of coordinating efforts between the many activists groups. We understand the importance of people relating to people in small groups and how it creates bonds and loyalty to a cause. DFA community groups are an example of this,

Someone asked, ?How do we talk to our friends that are close to realizing that the current administration is destroying our country?? The conclusion was that there was no easy answer. The best choice was to be gentle and not overwhelm awakening people with evidence. Eric explained that conservatives are becoming aware that they are yearning for something they have lost. Conservatives think ?reclaiming? is the way to a better America while progressives think ?moving forward? is the best route.

Lt Gov, Pat Quinn joined us at the end. Illinois is lucky to have such a high- ranking supporter of grass-root involvement. He reaffirmed his support of Howard Dean and DFA. When asked what we can do about the unresponsive and resistant traditional Democrats to our efforts, he encouraged to just ?be in their faces.?

As I took in fully, the group gathered in the room, it occurred to me what power was contained in this single room high in the center of Chicago. These people held the potential to positively impact the future of America. There were highly educated lawyers, wealthy businessmen, influential politicians, grass-root activists and up-and-coming young people. Chicago is not unique. There are similar groups of people in every average sized city in the United State. People are ready to become empowered.
After all these lofty thoughts, there was something very comforting in seeing Jim Dean make his exit carrying a plastic bag with his old tennis shoes sticking out the top of the bag.

fred from Or wrote on

Iraqi Dispatch

Dahr Jamail forwards a first-person report from western Iraq, as well as an open letter to Amnesty International of the proposed Constitution for Iraq--a document of doubtful legality even if it is voted on and passed by the Iraqi rubber stamps.

October 08, 2005

Violence leads only to more violence.

Ongoing military operations continue unabated in Al-Anbar province. With names like "Operation Iron Fist" and "Operation Iron Gate" which was launched just days after "Iron Fist," thousands of US troops, backed by warplanes, tanks and helicopters, began attacking small cities and villages primarily in the northwestern area of Al-Anbar.

According to the US military and corporate media, the purpose of these operations is to "root out" fighters from al-Qaida in Iraq, along with so-called insurgents.

An Iraqi journalist writing under the name Sabah Ali (due to concerns of retribution from US/Iraqi governmental authorities) recently returned from the Al-Qa'im area of Iraq. Her report tells quite a different story.

Venturing into the combat zone at the end of September/beginning of October, Sabah visited the village of Aanah, 360 km west of Baghdad, accomplishing a feat no non-embedded western journalist has dared undertake. The following is the report from Sabah, with photos, which shows the effect of these operations on civilians in the area:

-----------------
There are 1,500 refugee families

located now in this very new and modern city of Aanah (the old Aanah was drowned under the Euphrates when a dam was constructed in the eighties). The Aanah Humanitarian Relief Committee (AHRC) said that there are 7,450 families from Al-Qa'im and surroundings areas scattered in different western cities, villages and in the desert. The AHRC report said that a few hundred families are still being besieged in A-Qa'im; they could not leave for different reasons. Some have disabled members (there are many now in Al-Qa'im), or have no money to move, or they prefer to stay under the bombing rather than living in a refugee camp.

Many families could not leave. Abu Alaa', for example, whose house was damaged earlier this year, whose wife lost her sight in that attack, could not leave because his wife and his father in law were shot again last week, injuring his wife again in abdomen; she is still in the hospital, and he could not leave. We call upon the international society to demand that these families are given the chance to leave before the city is devastated. People who stay behind are not necessarily fighters.
They simply could not move.

Families remaining in the area are in the following towns/villages/locations: The Projects area (2,500 families), Okashat, (950 families), Fheida (500), Phosphate factory (400), Cement factory (350), Tiwan (400), Aanah (1,500), Raihana (100), Hasa (200), Jbab (125), Nhaiya (100), and Ma'adhid (75).

People are squatting in schools, public buildings, offices and youth centers. Many are in tent camps

living in tents donated by various local relief committees.

The luckiest are those who have friends or relatives to stay with in proper houses. Many of them need medical help, the children and the youth do not go to schools, they already lost a year last summer, and the women are having unbelievable difficulties trying to keep the families in impossible conditions. Aanah youth center iis turned into a refugee camp. Here there are 45 families who live in tents, 17 families in the building.

Raja Yasin, a widow originally from Basra but was married and had her 10 children in Alqaim says; “If we had not run away we would have been killed in the bombing. We have nothing now. We need blankets and food.” Raja’s family is desperately poor. She has only her teenage son to help feed the family. But Raja is happy that she ran with her family [because]: “the attack will begin tomorrow,” she said.

Mrs. Khamis, a mother of eight and a wife of a high school teacher, is not in a better situation: “We had to run bare foot; I left the lunch on the stove when the attack began. There was heavy bombing and mortar shelling, we had to run through the side streets with white flags” But she is not comfortable in the camp either: “There is no hot water; I have to give the children cold baths and the weather is changing. There is only one toilet for all these families, all together: men, women, and children. My brother tried to go back to Al-Qa’im three times to get some clothes and stuff from our house but could not go through the check points. We need blankets, food, fuel, and medicines…the attack will begin tomorrow.”

The Khamis family did not receive the monthly food ration or salary for the two months before the last attack. Many health cases in the camp needed immediate medical attendance, especially children, but the families are blocked in the camp. And after the attack eventually began on Saturday, October 1, and the second
attack on Haditha under the name of ‘Operation River Gate’, all the roads were completely closed.

Dr.Hamdi Al-Aloossy, General Director of the Al-Qa’im hospital was in Aanah, meeting with Dr. Walid Jawad, the Aanah General Director of Aanah hospital, obviously discussing what to do regarding the refugees and the impending invasion of Al-Qa’im.

Dr. Hamdi

confirmed that the majority of Al-Qa’ims population of 150,000 left the city, and that only the disabled and those who preferred to stay remained. He also confirmed that many of the casualties he treated were women and children (He has already confirmed this on Al-Arabia channel three days earlier.) He explained that the families are not afraid of the bombing, the fighting or the mortars as much as they are afraid of an American-Iraqi invasion of the city, something which many families
mentioned too.

According to Dr. Hamdi: “After the families saw what happened in Tal-Afar on TV, and after the threat of the Defense Minister to attack Al-Qa’im, they were terrified. The immigration was crazy. It was an irresponsible statement by the Defense Minister. There were no military evacuation orders. These thousands of children and families are living in the wilderness in very bad conditions. A child of two months got seven scorpion stings. Another two families of 14 members each got
poisoned because of canned food. The health security in the camps is zero. And the health security in the bombed and attacked areas is 100% at risk. It makes me cry to think of those families. Child mortality increased three times due to ordinary illnesses because we do not have any vaccines, and no electricity to keep them. Women health cannot be surveyed, many of them moved out of town. We used to receive 200 a day, now 15-20. We do not have regular statistics. But we can say roughly that the death percentage due to women cases increased by two times.”

“We repair the hospital every two months; the glass, the water; the electricity…and it is bombed again, the government has to do something about this. Violence leads only to more violence.”

Dr.Walid

of Aanah, said that his hospital cannot cover the huge numbers of refugees.

“We are receiving 500-600 patients a day; we do not have this capacity. We do not have a surgeon, an aesthetician, emergency medicines and supplies, children syrups, lab materials…etc.,” said Dr. Walid, “And in Aanah now there are 3-5 families in each house.”

During our one hour visit to Dr. Walid’s office, patients never stopped coming in and going out. The majority of them are from Al-Qa’im or Rawa, another western Iraqi city which witnessed a very bad invasion three months ago. A young woman of 18, Sabreen, limping, needs an operation and natural therapy. She is one of five women workers in the Rawa textile factory who were shot by the American troops three months ago. Dr. Walid sent her to a surgeon in Ramadi, a friend of his.

In Aanah high school, we met 14 families; the majority of them were from Rawa. They turned the classrooms into guest rooms, living rooms, and kitchens. Class desks were used as kitchen tables, and they wash dishes and clothes in the yard. Needless to say all the schools in the attacked areas are closed. But in Aanah, where the situation is relatively calm, the schools are open, but they use 2-3 class rooms and give the rest to the refugee families to stay in.

The saddest thing about these families is that they do not know why they are facing this destiny. Aala’ Ahmad ,15 years old, does not understand how the American troops could take her family’s house, occupy it and send them away, just because it looks out on the whole town of Rawa: “They did not let us go back to our house, they said that they need to come back regularly,” she said. Aala’ lost
her school year. Um Ismael , a mother of six does not understand why the American troops blew up the gate of her house while it was open. “They searched and destroyed every thing, and found nothing,” she said, “I do not even have young men for them to arrest, what are we going to do now?”

The families with whom we spent our first night in Aanah were squatting in a deserted unfinished construction site. It is a rather big, two floor house. Its owner is a lawyer from a well known family. He meant it to be a guest house. The women cleaned it from dead animals, construction mess, waste…arranged for water, electric lights, and plastic carpets on the floor, some rags on the windows openings, still it is not comfortable to live in , bats raid the place at night, the
windows openings bring chilling air, stairs without railing…etc.

Afaf, a teacher and a mother of four, described what happened: “We left 3 weeks ago when the bombing on Al-Qa’im began. Some families left earlier after the Defense Minister, Sadoon Al-Duleimi, threatened Al-Garbiya area of an overall attack. They were clever because they had time to take some furniture, clothes, food and stuff with them. When the bombing began we had to leave as quickly as possible. It was a very sad day. People were running out of the city, holding white flags, terrified, some in cars, some on feet; some got trucks and helped the old and the families.”

All these families had more or less similar reasons to run away. But all of them agreed on one thing: they were afraid of the impending American-Iraqi invasion.
“We have our daughters to worry about. Every thing can be fixed except honor,” Afaf told us. They were afraid that the invaders would rape their girls. “We saw what happened in Tal-Afar. They arrest all the men, the women are left on their own, and the roads are closed. We do not want to find ourselves in this situation,” Afaf said.

Other families are living in horrible conditions in various refugee camps scattered
throughout northwestern Al-Anbar province.

______________________________________________________

Keep in mind that this visit took place just before the current major military operations began. Reports from that area now confirm that the situation has grown far, far worse.

Another friend of mine recently returned from the Al-Qa’im area where she brought aid supplies to refugee families. During a phone call she reported, “You can’t imagine the situation these people are living in Dahr. There are so many of their homes bombed by warplanes people living in camps and families in the desert who just need blankets and food. It’s horrible.”

And now, according to a recent IRIN report, “Nearly 1,000 families have fled their homes in Haditha in western Iraq following the launch of a US-ld military operation to hunt down insurgents in the town in the Euphrates river valley, according to residents in the area.”
*******************************************************************************************

(c)2004, 2005 Dahr Jamail.
All images, photos, photography and text are protected by United States and international copyright law. If you would like to reprint Dahr's Dispatches on the web, you need to include this copyright notice and a prominent link to the http://DahrJamailIraq.com website. Website by photographer Jeff Pflueger's Photography Media http://jeffpflueger.com . Any other use of images, photography, photos and text including, but not limited to, reproduction, use on another website, copying and printing requires the permission of Dahr Jamail. Of course, feel free to forward Dahr's dispatches via email.

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

Open Letter to Amnesty International on the Iraqi Constitution

The following letter was composed by members of the Brussels Tribunal
, one of the groups from the World
Tribunal on Iraq. For those interested in international law and the
upcoming referendum vote on the Iraqi constitution, this is a must read:

We would like to congratulate Amnesty International on its courageous stand against the massive human rights violations inflicted upon the people of Iraq by the US-led occupation forces, as stated in the Amnesty International annual report of 2005.
/
"Armed groups committed gross human rights abuses, including targeting civilians, hostage-taking and killing hostages. Women continued to be harassed and threatened amid the mounting daily violence. The death penalty was reinstated in August by the new interim government.”/

The recommendations made by Amnesty International's chief Mr. Schulz in the aftermath of this report were very clear:
/
"If the US government continues to shirk its responsibility, Amnesty International calls on foreign governments to uphold their obligations under international law by investigating all senior US officials involved in the torture scandal," said Schulz, who added that violations of the torture convention, which has been ratified by the United States and some 138 other countries, can be prosecuted in any jurisdiction.” /

On August 9, 2005, Amnesty International launched a “Call for a human rights based constitution”. This action alert calls on people to write to Jaafari, asking him to make sure that the constitution is one that respects human rights. Of course, we embrace the idea that Iraqi’s human rights will be much better protected in the future than they are today.
Nevertheless, everyone who cares about human rights should question the validity of a constitution that is written under the current situation. A call we received from a well-know human rights activist from Baghdad, who has strong reservations against Amnesty International’s action alert, should illustrate our concern. For security reasons we can’t reveal the author’s name. We apologize for this, but in our opinion, people in a war zone should still have the right and opportunity to
speak out without risking death. It also shows how grievous the situation in Iraq is, and how far the so-called ‘Salvador option’, the state-directed terror against the population, is now in action.

/“I hear Amnesty International is campaigning for Human Rights in the new Iraqi draft constitution? How wonderful that they are concerned about our human rights in the future... but what about now? Why doesn’t Amnesty International campaign or at least say something about the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis who are held for months, years in the American prisons, without the least rights? The known and the unknown prisons inside and outside Iraq? Why don’t they do something about the hundreds of Iraqis, whose bodies are found every day on the garbage piles, with evidences of horrible torture on their bodies after they had been disappeared for a few days? What about the miserable life the Iraqi government is giving the Iraqis for months now, in every field? Does Amnesty International consider the rewriting of the constitution now a legal process? Obviously it does, but on what bases? The war and occupation of Iraq are illegal (even Kofi Annan said it). Who wrote the draft? A member of the writing committee admitted that a
draft was sent from the US. So, how far is this legal? /

/I would like to ask Amnesty International one question: why is it so necessary to write a new constitution for Iraq now? All the political parties, the government, the National Assembly, the media ..etc are preoccupied with the (controversial points) in the constitution for months now, and will be for the next few months. Meanwhile, the country is full of problems: the security, the services, the economy, the
environment, the corruption, the Human Rights conduct of the Iraqi government... to mention only few ..two days ago I went to a dentist compound, one of the biggest in Baghdad, where at least 50 dentists work. They could not pull out my tooth because they did not have anesthetic...a very common problem in the Iraqi hospitals for months. Too bad for my teeth, but imagine with emergency cases?/

/In Tallafar families did not get the food ration, neither any other food since the beginning of this year. In many Iraqi towns, the majority, there is no authority, no law, no police, no courts, only the armed militias and their political parties. Racial cleansing has begun in many parts of Iraq. The government in the heavily fortified Green Zone is very busy working on the constitution./

/During the last attack on Haditha, for more than two weeks, all the news programs, the dialogue, the forums were focused on the constitution and in the meantime an Iraqi major city was practically slaughtered. No one said a word about it as if it was happening on the moon. Do you think that this is just a coincidence? And, by the way, it happened and is happening continuously in other places. /

/There are so many problems in Iraq now, so many crimes committed daily, where innocent people are killed, arrested, tortured… Why is it so important to neglect all these crimes and be busy with the constitution? Why is it so urgent?/

/Saddam did not write the Iraqi constitution, and if there were some changes or resolutions added to it during the last 30 years, they can be cancelled, simple. We can keep our constitution until we have a proper government and national assembly. After we are done with the most urgent problems, we can take our time writing the most humanitarian and progressive constitution in the world!/

/Maybe more dangerous is the fact that rewriting the constitution now is deepening the divisions between the Iraqis and pushing them to the verge of civil war, because some of them were given guarantees to participate in the political process, which they refused in the beginning, and after they agreed, the guarantees proved to be untrue. /

/Now these groups are saying that they were deceived, and they reject the draft presented to the National Assembly. All these problems are for what? Just to help Bush look more successful in Iraq, to give him more diplomatic credit? /

/To hold the election, thousands of people were killed and the entire city of Fallujah was demolished. Now, what is needed to impose a constitution? A civil war ?"/

/Can’t you see that it is a game? The political parties and ethnic, sectarian groups are taking the chance of imposing a constitution convenient to their interests, and their masters interests, not the interests of Iraq. I am not saying this out of my own prejudice, no, they admit it themselves, openly. And by the way, there is a very unhealthy, non-objective atmosphere in which this constitution is written, which is something very expected and normal in the current situation. But it is not the right way to write a constitution. /

/I know very well who are the friends and the enemies of Iraq and its people. I have nothing against any international organization. On the contrary, I, personally, am badly in need of an international organization that can help me in my campaign on the Missing. I want these organizations to come here and work on the violations that the occupation did and is doing in Iraq. We need them badly to see what the
occupation is covering by rewriting the constitution. We need them to campaign for releasing the innocent, or at least giving them some rights in prison, not to campaign for a political process built on the wrong basis./

/The problem is that the world is asking somebody who is burning in fire to scream in a low voice. Have you experienced living with death all around you, with fear of everything and everybody, with the horrible stories and pictures of what some Iraqis are facing? Excuse my frustration, with my respect to all the international organizations which defend Human Rights. “ /

An article, written on August 17th by Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi novelist and columnist of ‘The Guardian’, reflects the essence of this message we received from inside Iraq:

/“perhaps we need to remember that this constitution is being written in a war zone, in a country on the verge of a civil war. This process is designed not to represent the Iraqi people's need for a constitution but to comply with an imposed timetable aimed at legitimising the occupation. The drafting process has increasingly proved a dividing, rather than a unifying, process. Under Saddam Hussein, we had a
constitution described as "progressive and secular". It did not stop him violating human rights, women's included. The same is happening now. The militias of the parties heading the interim government are involved in daily violations of Iraqis' human rights, women's in particular, with the US-led occupation's blessing. Will the new constitution put an end to this violence?” /

We do agree that a “constitution should make a specific reference to international law as one of the sources of national legislation and that in case of conflict between national law and international law, the Constitution should specify that international law should prevail”, as it is stated in the second of a set of recommendations Amnesty International published on August 11, 2005. We regret that Amnesty International, which is a noted human rights organisation, doesn’t seem to acknowledge that the war of aggression, the subsequent occupation,
the changing of any law under occupation and this entire process of writing a new Constitution are fully in breach of international law. May we remind Amnesty International of the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany 1946: /"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."/ How can /“a human rights based constitution”/ possibly emanate from /“the supreme international crime”? /

Just a few weeks ago, a highly significant judicial decision, comprising more than 130 pages, was handed down by the German Federal Administrative Court. With careful reasoning, the judges ruled that the assault launched by the United States and its allies against Iraq was a clear war of aggression that violated international law. The occupation itself constitutes the gravest violation of human rights and dignity. The legitimacy and autonomy of this government, installed and completely controlled by the US occupation forces after an illegal and illegitimate war of aggression, is not only challenged by a large part of the Iraqi population, but also by the international peace movement and international lawyers.

At the culminating session in Istanbul, June 23-26, 2005, the World Tribunal on Iraq, a network of independent groups and individuals from across the world, who cooperated in order to investigate the US-led war of aggression against Iraq and the crimes committed by the occupying forces, resulted in a Declaration of the Jury of Conscience. This jury concluded that the invasion was illegal under international law, as is the subsequent occupation.

Some excerpts:

/Overview of Findings/

/10. Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority. The recently concluded election, the Constituent Assembly, the current government, and the drafting committee for the Constitution are therefore all illegitimate.
(…)
We recommend:
3. That all laws, contracts, treaties, and institutions established under occupation, which the Iraqi people deem inimical to their interests, be considered null and void.
(…)
10. That people around the world resist and reject any effort by any of their governments to provide material, logistical, or moral support to the occupation of Iraq.
(… )
International Law Appendix/

/III. The occupation of Iraq has fragrantly violated The Right of Self-Determination of the People of Iraq:/

/• Article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and of the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights (1966): “(1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”; /

/• It is evident that the occupation, by its decrees, practices, imposition of an interim government, managed elections, and administered constitution-making process has violated the right of self-determination of the Iraqi people, a fundamental element of international human rights law./

The full version of the conclusions of the Jury of Conscience can be read at http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?b=91. These conclusions are –
as already mentioned above  supported by many Human Rights activists, a large fraction of the global Peace Movement and a considerable number of
experts in International law.

In the above mentioned document of August 11, Amnesty International pleaded for an extension of article 44 of the Constitution draft, regarding international law. Today, in chorus with AI and many Iraqi human rights organisations, we deplore the removal of this article from the final Constitution draft. In the same document, Amnesty International emphasised the importance to /“establish universal
jurisdiction for the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, extra-judicial executions and ‘disappearances’, in order that Iraqi national courts can investigate and, if there is sufficient admissible evidence, prosecute anyone who enters Iraqi territory suspected of these crimes, regardless of where the crime was committed or the nationality of the accused or the victim.” / These crimes have been and are committed by the occupying forces, the US forces in
particular, who are controlling the country of Iraq until now, and by the Iraqi institutions that were established under US supervision. Wasn’t it the present US government, which threatened to invade the Netherlands in case one of the members of the US government would be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court of The Hague?

We are not surprised about the removal of article 44 under the current situation, neither do we believe that the new Constitution will ever contain any provisions that could lead to prosecution of those, who ordered crimes against the Iraqi people, like the president of the US and other government officials and Army generals. Therefore, it should be argued that the basic condition for drafting a constitution for Iraq is the swift ending of the occupation, with a scheduled withdrawal of all foreign troops. Only then, and under the full sovereignty of the Iraqi people, can an independent government of Iraq be formed. Such a government can then decide if and when a constitution should be drafted.

With the above in mind, we consider it suitable if Amnesty International would concentrate its efforts on denouncing the grave violations of human rights inflicted upon the Iraqi people by the occupying forces in order to bring the responsible war criminals to justice, instead of starting a campaign that de facto gives some legitimisation to this inhumane occupation and its Quisling government, whose legality is highly questionable. We strongly recommend that Amnesty International
focuses on humanitarian law to ensure that grave breaches of the Geneva
Conventions are properly addressed.

Prof. Lieven De Cauter, Prof. Jean Bricmont, Prof. Em. François Houtart,
Patrick Deboosere, Hana Al Bayaty, Dirk Adriaensens, Inge Van de Merlen.

For The BRussells Tribunal Executive Committee:

Hans von Sponeck (Former UN Assistant Secretary General & United Nations
Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq 1998-2000 - Germany)
Michael Parenti (author – USA)
Nermin Al-Mufti (Former co-director of Occupation Watch - Journalist -
Iraq)
Ghazwan Al-Mukhtar (Engineer - Iraq)
Abdul Ilah Al-Bayaty (Writer - Iraq / France)
Haifa Zangana (Novelist - Iraq / UK)
Sabah Al-Mukhtar (President of the Arab Lawyers Association - Iraq / UK)
Dr. Imad Khadduri (Nuclear scientist - Iraq / Canada)
Sami Ramadani (Senior lecturer in sociology at London Metropolitan
University - Iraq / UK)
Mundher Al-Adhami (Research Fellow at Kings College London - Iraq / UK)
Mohammed Aref (Science writer - Iraq / UK)
Amal Al-Khedairy (Expert on Iraqi History, Culture, Archeology Arts and
Crafts - Iraq)
Niloufer Bhagwat (Vice President of Indian Lawyers Association - Mumbai
/ India)
Dahr Jamail (Journalist - USA)
Karen Parker (Attorney - USA)
Jan Fermon (Lawyer of the Court case against General Tommy Franks in
Brussels)
Amy Bartholomew (Law professor - Canada)
Nadia McCaffrey (Leading personality within the US anti-war movement - USA)
Gabriele Zamparini (independent filmmaker - Italy/UK)
Jeffrey Blankfort (Former editor of the Middle East Labor Bulletin and
currently hosts radio programs - USA)
Jeff Archer/Malcom Lagauche (Journalist - USA)
Carlos Varea (coordinator of SCOSI - Spanish Campaign against Occupation
and for the Sovereignty of Iraq - Spain)
Joachim Guilliard (Journalist, Anti-war movement - Germany)
Sigyn Meder (Anti-war movement - Sweden)
Manuel Raposo (the Portuguese hearing of WTI)
Ludo De Brabander (Vrede – Belgium)
Peter Algoet (Humanistisch Verbond)
Jos Hennes (EPO publishers)
Frank Vercruyssen (actor - TG Stan)

_______________________________________________

The Sales Ladies

Woke up this morning feeling rather snarky about the nannies in the White House: Condi, Karen and now Harriet. But that comparison isn't fair to Fran Drescher.

Fran Drescher did a superb job playing a character whose behavior did not match her outward appearance--a floozy with a heart. So then I have to wondered what it is that makes the three cronies (crones ?) so objectionable. And I was reminded of what used to be referred to as "sales ladies."

I expect that "sales ladies" in upscale department stores have largely been phased out but I can still recall that the "ladies" at Bergdorf Goodman's, for example, used to give me fits.

It was so obvious that they had two functions: to kiss the hands of wealthy customers and discourage the rabble from even setting foot beyond the front door. While I was never one to be easily discouraged and could have, in fact, bought most anything on offer, if I was so inclined, what was irksome was that a bona fide shopper with a particular purchase in mind wasn't appreciated either. The job of the "ladies" was to sell stuff that no reasonable person would actually want.

Remember the perfume counter? Can't you just see Condi, in that helmet of immovable hair, offering a dab of expensive essence and applying it ever so gently to be sniffed on the wrist?

So, what is it about Georgie and his "sales ladies?" Is it that they remind him of being treated like a little prince while Barbara cleaned out the boutiques on her shopping trips?

At the risk of being catty, I have to say that these made-up ladies in the White House offend me. Condi and Karen and Harriet are caricatures of the competent woman and that's offensive. Just as there is something offensive about Clarence Thomas, who still acts like one of those lawn ornaments. It's almost as if Thomas came to life for that one instant, to talk about a media lynching, and then resumed the position.

Nonproliferation

Dear Supporter of the UrgentCall to End the Nuclear Danger,

As you may know the Bush Administration has recently taken new steps that increase the danger of nuclear war. In addition too blocking progress on nearly all arms control efforts, the administration has persisted in trying to develop a nuclear bunker buster. Equally horrifying, administration officials have been talking again about plans to use such weapons in third world countries.

Against this backdrop, more than 30 leaders of national antinuclear efforts from the founders of the Nuclear Weapon Freeze Campaign in 1980 to today's most effective advocates are gathering on the MIT campus in Cambridge MA for a major event on Friday-Saturday, 21-22 October: NONPROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT: THE WAY FORWARD.

The flier below gives details on speakers and location. If you are not too far away, I hope that you will join us. Please go to http://idds.org to register. In addition, we would be grateful if you would forward this email, or the attached poster version, to your friends and acquaintances. For those who cannot attend, please check back at http://idds.org later in October for information on a post-event web cast and/or video recording.

In conjunction with this large gathering, on Sunday, 23 October, Rev William Sloan Coffin, David Cortright, Harvey Cox and several dozen religious leaders from across the country will be meeting at the Harvard Divinity School to launch a new Interreligious Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. This network will build on a revised version of our original UrgentCall. Please visit UrgentCall.org after 1 November to learn about a completely new and expanded UrgentCall campaign, and for information on how to participate actively in the new Interreligious Network.

With best wishes,

Randy Forsberg, Director, UrgentCall.org

(Ms.) Randall Caroline Forsberg, Ph.D., Director
Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies
675 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge MA 02139
Tel: 617-354-IDDS (4337), Fax: 617-354-1450
Web: www.urgentcall.org, www.idds.org
Email: forsberg@urgentcall.org, or forsberg@idds.org

On the 25th Anniversary of the Nuclear Weapon Freeze Campaign
and the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS)

NONPROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT?THE WAY FORWARD
Celebration, Education, Inspiration

A symposium, reception, and luncheons at MIT, Cambridge MA
Friday-Sunday, 21-23 October 2005

Please join us for any or all parts of extraordinary weekend with more than 30 nationally-known speakers. All events except lunches are free. Registration is required: to avoid a delay at the door register on line or call 617-354-IDDS (4337). Please forward this invitation widely. Check back at IDDS for a web cast or video version after the event.

Summary
For details and maps, see below.

* Friday (21 Oct) Symposium with Nuclear Freeze co-founder Randall Forsberg, Harvard professor Graham Allison, UCS scientist David Wright, and others, 4 pm?7 pm: New Threats and Responses. Co-sponsor MIT Center for International Studies. MIT Green Bldg, Room 54-100
* Saturday (22 Oct) Symposium with Keynote Speaker Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) and many others, 8 am?6 pm: Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament?The Way Forward. Co-sponsor MIT Technology & Culture Forum. MIT Compton Labs Bldg, Room 26-100
* Saturday (22 Oct) Morrison Luncheon, 12?1:45 pm: Remarks: Ed Markey, John Pike, James Carroll*, Noam Chomsky*, Patricia McMillan, and others. Fundraiser for Disarmament Fellowship in memory of IDDS and Technology & Culture Forum Board member Philip Morrison. MIT Faculty Club, Sloan Bldg E52
* Saturday(22 Oct) Reception with Helen Caldicott, William Sloane Coffin, and Nick Carter, 6 pm?8 pm: The Nuclear Freeze at 25 ? Celebration, Education, Inspiration. Co-sponsor MIT Technology & Culture Forum. MIT Vannevar Bush Bldg Lobby (Bldg 13, cash bar)
* Sunday (23 Oct) Luncheon, 12?2 pm: IDDS 25th Anniversary Fête. Celebrate with IDDS alums, friends, and family during a buffet lunch at the India Castle Restaurant.

Detailed Description of Events and Speakers

Friday, 21 Oct, 4?7 pm, MIT Green Bldg, Room 54-100 (map)
Symposium Co-sponsored by the MIT Center for International Studies
New Threats and Responses

4 pm. Long-term Goals for Security Regimes
Security Communities, Hayward Alker, IDDS Board, U of Southern California
Global Action to Prevent War, Amb. Jonathan Dean, IDDS Board, Union of Concerned Scientists
UN Constabulary Force, Saul Mendlovitz (former IDDS Board), Rutgers Law School
Confidence-building Defenses, Randall Forsberg, Founder and Director, Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies

5 pm. Post-9/11 Approaches to Security
Planning and Paying for America's Global Role, Cindy Williams, MIT
Counter-Proliferation and Preventive War, Neta Crawford (former IDDS staff), BU
Post-Soviet States, Steve Miller*, Editor-in-Chief, International Security, Harvard
Keeping WMD Ouf of Terrorists' Hands, Graham Allison, Director, Belfer Center, Harvard

6 pm. Responding to Unconventional Threats and Dangers
Radiological Weapons: Threats and Responses, Courtney Stewart, IDDS
Preventing or Limiting Pandemics, Clark Abt, Abt Associates
Weapons in Space, David Wright, Union of Concerned Scientists
Responses to BW Attacks, Judith Reppy, IDDS Board Chair, Cornell University

Saturday, 22 Oct, 8 am?5:30 pm, MIT Compton Labs Bldg, Room 26-100 (map) Symposium co-sponsored by the MIT Technology and Culture Forum
Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament: The Way Forward

8 am. Check-in, Tables

9:15 am. Welcome, Rev. Amy McCreath, MIT Technology and Culture Forum, Dr Randall Forsberg, Nuclear Freeze co-founder and Director, Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies

9:30 am. The Nuclear Freeze at 25: Lessons for Grassroots Outreach
Nuclear Freeze Campaign Co-founder Pam Solo, Director, Institute for Civil Society
Massachusetts Peace Action Director Shelagh Foreman
"Struggle against the Bomb" (3 vol history) Author Lawrence Wittner, SUNY-Albany
Nuclear Freeze Campaign Co-founder Randy Kehler*

10:45 am. Coffee Break

11:00 am. College Teaching on Security and Nonproliferation Issues
Views from Political Science or International Relations: Natalie Goldring, IDDS Board member, Georgetown; Laura Reed (former IDDS Staff and Officer), Harvard

11:40 am. Missile Defense and the Weaponization of Space
Matthew Hoey, IDDS

12 noon. Lunch Break

Saturday, 22 Oct, 12?1:45 pm, MIT Faculty Club, Sloane Bldg (E52) (map)
Luncheon co-sponsored by the MIT Technology and Culture Forum
Honoring Philip Morrison, a Morrison Disarmament Fellowship
Remarks: Congressman Ed Markey, John Pike, Randall Forsberg, Paul Walker, James Carroll*, Kosta Tsipis*, Pricilla McMillan and others (Donation, Advance Registration)

Saturday, 22 Oct, 8 am?5:30 pm, MIT Compton Labs Bldg, Room 26-100 (map)
Symposium co-sponsored by the MIT Technology and Culture Forum
Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament: The Way Forward (continued)

2 pm. Nuclear Proliferation and Arms Racing: What Lies Ahead?
Russia, USA, Robert Legvold, IDDS Board member, Columbia University
Iran, Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, John Pike, Founder and Director, globalsecurity.org
Reductions and Nonproliferation, Jonathan Schell, Columnist, The Nation, Author, "The Fate of the Earth"

3 pm. Keynote Speaker: Congressman Ed Markey(D-MA), introduction by Randall Forsberg, Director, Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies

3:30 pm. Cultural, Psychological and Religious Responses to the Nuclear Threat
Harvey Cox (former IDDS Board member), Professor, Harvard Theological Seminary
Robert Jay Lifton, Harvard Medical School, Author
Alan Kay (former IDDS President), Founder and President, Public-Interest Polling

4:15 pm. Turning the Tide: Routes toward a Safer World
Bldg on Our Successes, David Cortright, Director, Fourth Freedom Forum
Reaching Voters and Congress, Susan Shaer, Director, Women?s Action for New Directions
Goals for 2006-2008, Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Awakening America, David Krieger, Founder, Director, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Saturday, 22 Oct, 6?8 pm, MIT Vannevar Bush Bldg Lobby (Bldg 13) (map)
Panel and Reception co-sponsored by the MIT Technology and Culture Forum
Nuclear Freeze at 25?Celebration, Education, Inspiration

6 pm. Reception
Nick Carter, former National Freeze Director, Dr Helen Caldicott, Remarks; Rev William Sloane Coffin, Introducing the Interreligious Network to Eliminate Nuclear Weapons (cash bar, registration required, please register on line)

Sunday, 23 Oct, 12-2 pm, India Castle, 928 Massachusetts Ave, Cambridge
Luncheon hosted by the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies
IDDS 25th Anniversary Fête
Join current and former IDDS Board, staff, interns, volunteers, supporters, with friends and family; celebrate, reminisce, and catch up during an Indian buffet lunch ($15 per person, $5 for children 5-12). Advance registration and payment are required. (map)

All events are sponsored by the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, a UN-registered NGO and 501(c)(3) nonprofit, tax-exempt center for research and education on ways to reduce the risk of war, minimize military spending, and foster democratic institutions. Address (Central Square): IDDS, 675 Massachusetts Ave, 9th fl, Cambridge MA 02139. Tel: 617-354-IDDS (4337), Fax: 617-354-1450, Web: idds.org, Email: info@idds.org. We need and welcome tax-deductible donations to support our work, and we offer internships to grad and undergrad students. Please see idds.org for more information.

RedSea LLC

Lerner and Baron, the principals of RedSea LLC, are proteges of DeLay, Quail and Coverdell. No doubt they are proud of their portfolio and the work they've done for the Club for Growth.

and this one for the Concerned Women for America

Sensible Business

DFA Link-up Day

Today is DFA Link-up Day, the first Wednesday of the month and we're to start down the road leading to effective political campaigns--i.e. winning positions for Democrats. To help with that we've been sent a "training module" which, it's been suggested, was put together by someone who's really into "lesson plans" as a teaching tool.

(As someone who's used to using hammers and saws and pliers and screw drivers, I find references to instruction booklets and computer soft-ware programs as "tools" really irritating, but haven't come up with a suitable alternative)

OK, the training module for developing an "action message" that I found particularly irksome did ask a question that got me thinking, mainly because I didn't like the answer suggested in the module.

Question: "So, why are you a Democrat?"

Suggested 27-9-3 (27 words that can be spoken in 9 seconds and make 3 points) response: "I believe in right and wrong. It's wrong to deprive children of health care, to start immoral wars, and to abuse governmental powers. It's time for what's right."

Why do I have a problem with the response? Let me count the ways.

1) Beliefs are convenient 'cause you can't argue with them. Somebody can say they believe that the moon is made of green cheese and that tells you they're sort of nutty, or a humorist, but it doesn't tell you anything about their abilities and skills.
2) Right and wrong are convenient categories, but since most of the people we currently disagree with consider themselves to be "right," using their verbiage gives them an edge to begin with.
3) While it would be accurate to assert that to "deprive children of health care" is wrong, there's a difference between "depriving" or taking away and "not providing." So this phraseology is sugesting something that's not actually happening.
4) Nobody will disagree that immoral wars should not be started, but in this context that assertion implies a value judgement about a particular action with which a lot of Democrats, never mind Republicans, obviously didn't and don't agree. This assertion also doesn't tell us anything about the speaker's aptitude or even how he/she would deal with conflicts.
5) While those who actually have a clear idea of what "governmental powers" are, might be inclined to agree that they should not be exercised "abusively," the phrase "to abuse governmental powers" is rather murky. It's hard to see how a power can be abused. Abuse means to "use badly" and child abuse means to beat a child or starve it, just as "spouse abuse" means to beat a spouse, instead of treating her with tenderness. Indeed, given the prevalence of other kinds of abuse being practiced in the general population, the abuse of governmental powers might well register as a positive.
6) "It's time for what's right" is a meaningless phrase, just about on a par with "compassionate conservative."

*********
Of course, when I think back to the Kerry campaign, it was just this mealy-mouthed kind of verbiage that he and his handlers were spouting and ordinary folk just shook their heads and went with the devil they knew, rather than the one they didn't. And the real shame is that Kerry actually has some valuable skills, both as an administrator, a law enforcer, and a legislator. But none of that got into the national conversation.
**********
I have to assume that they are still teaching the relationship between subject and object, the actor and the thing acted upon, in school. Maybe not. Maybe that's why so many people don't seem to be able to make the distinction about who did what to whom and when. But, at least the people who are proposing to represent us in making decisions for the general welfare should have a clear idea of cause and effect and what the difference is.

That said (as an addendum to the above), let me go on to what I think a Democrat is.

Democrats are busybodies. Democrats care about the well-being of other people's children. Democrats don't want other people's house to burn down; they don't want it to be flooded, whether because of bad plumbing or a violent storm either. And it's not because they are altruistic. It's because Democrats know that, no matter how clever and self-sufficient they and their own children are, they will eventually have to depend on somebody else's children to provide some service and, when they do, they want that service to be good. And Democrats know that if somebody else's house catches fire and it's not put out, then the neighbor's house and finally their own is likely to be next.

So, being a busybody is really self-protective.

Republicans, on the other hand, have historically tended to be people who are inclined to mind their own business and expect others to mind theirs. Indeed, when it comes to the public's business, they prefer to "let George do it." Which is not an unreasonable position to take, as long as George actually knows how the things that need doing are to be done and does them.

But, what we've seen recently is that the people who present themselves as "minding their business," whether that business is concerned with generating a private profit or providing a public service, aren't really "minding the store." Instead, they've handed their business off to someone else who's got no know-how or expertise, while they goof off and play golf.

What's really ironic is that the people who have been traditionally committed to minding their own business have been persuaded not only to let others tell them how to vote, but to let those who should be delivering public goods tell them how to conduct their most intimate relationships. And that, if you ask me, is really strange. Why are people who just want to mind their own business letting other people tell them whether or not to have children?

Democrats don't do that. Democrats want other people's children to be well educated and skilled.They want them to be healthy and productive and artistic. They do not want to tell other people that they should and shouldn't have them. Mainly because Democrats realize that other people's children is all we have.

See, the nice thing about other people's children is that this concept includes everyone. Everybody is somebody else's child, regardless of their age or gender or ethnic origin, or whatever. It's what we all have in common. And yes, those who are inclined to elevate that somebody else to a position of super importance, identify that somebody, whose child we all are, as God.

That's what Democrats believe and act on. They just don't make a big fuss about it. Which, I guess is what's got to change. We've got to make a fuss and let people know that we know what we're doing and will do a good job, if they'll give us their business.

Nukes in Iraq?

There are none. Right? After all, the place was swept for all kinds of weapons of mass destruction and declared clean. So, the inspectors are gone and there's no reason to look further.

But what if that was the point of all the hoopla over yellow cake and drones and mobile production units in the first place? To prove that there was nothing there?

Lots of people still can't figure out what John Kerry meant when he said it was the wrong war, in the wrong place, for the wrong reason. And they can't figure out why his position on the war in Vietnam seemed to have changed; why he wasn't the anti-war hero he was when he'd just been there.

Most people weren't aware until just a couple of years ago, on the fortieth anniversary of the Cuban missile crisis, that John F. Kennedy made a secret deal with Nikita Khrushchev back in 1962 to get the Soviet missiles removed from within striking distance of our major American cities; that, in addition to lifting the naval embargo on Cuba, the U.S. agreed to remove the 15 Jupiter missiles that were still in place on three bases near Izmir, Turkey.
Since Kennedy had already ordered these missiles removed

"By the time that the Turkish Jupiters had been installed, the missiles
were already largely obsolete and increasingly vulnerabl to Soviet
attacks. President John F. Kennedy ordered the removal of all
Jupiter IRBMs upon taking office in 1961. The Air Force, however,
delayed removal and the President was infuriated to learn that they
had not yet been removed more than a year later." (at the time of the
Cuban missile crisis) "All Jupiter IRBMs were removed from service
by April 1963."

the Soviet demand was not unreasonable and keeping it a secret probably had as much to do with the realization that the Air Force's recalcitrance had brought on a crisis that needn't have been, as the desire not to appear to give in to the Soviets.

So what's this got to do with Vietnam and Iraq and why has Senator John Kerry change his position? Could it be because he's since discovered that the reason the American interest in Vietnam was never clearly defined was because, then and now, the real reason is finding a permanent home in the Indian Ocean region for our nuclear missiles and bombs--bases from which it would be easy to launch our WMD, with little chance that they could be intercepted before they hit their intended target?

The goal, after all, is to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here at home, as George W. Bush has said over and over, and John Kerry has not bothered to refute? Because he couldn't. After all, he's been voting for the Pentagon budgets that contained the planning money for this project all along.

If you think this scenario is far fetched, ask yourself why the Pentagon construction budget for Iraq this year is double what was spent in the previous four. What is it that we're building in northern Iraq to which our friends the Kurds object?

Kennedy ordered the Jupiter missiles removed because in his judgement, as a former Navy man, he concurred with the assessment that the carrier fleet and submarines were a more reliable delivery system. No doubt, the Navy would argue the same today. But the Air Force is obviously not satisfied with the huge complex that was secretly constructed at al Udeid in Kuwait. Or perhaps, like South Korea, Japan and the Philippines, Kuwait has refused to host our nuclear missiles and bombs.

And then there's Europe. A study just released by the Natural Resources Defense Council is sure to generate a discussion of how much longer our nuclear weapons will be welcome there.

The United States' closest ally, Britain, currently plays host to 110
tactical nuclear missiles at the Lakenheath airbase in Suffolk, the
home of American F-15 fighter planes in the UK. This figure itself
is three times as high as previously thought. Elsewhere around
Europe, the US has 90 bombs deployed at Incirlik in south-eastern
Turkey, 90 in Italy and 20 each in Belgium and the Netherlands,
according to the NRDC.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1484206,00.html

No doubt, after Vietnam was ruled off limits, a secular Iraq ruled by a friendly dictator seemed a likely candidate for U.S. bases, but Saddam Hussein had ideas of his own and, eventually, the price for his co-operation got too high. So, the decision was made to take him out and prepare the ground for the U.S. to be welcomed with open arms.

Though it hasn't quite worked out as expected, the bases are abuilding and a "partial withdrawal" will leave enough troops to man the missiles and satellite tracking stations, as well as permanent maintenance and fuelling facilities for our stealth fleet. And nobody's talking about nukes because we all know Iraq is "clean."

Katrina News via UK + update from Slidell

Iraq war delayed Katrina relief effort, inquiry finds
By Kim Sengupta
Published: 03 October 2005

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article316682.ece

Relief efforts to combat Hurricane Katrina suffered near catastrophic failures due to endemic corruption, divisions within the military and troop shortages caused by the Iraq war, an official American inquiry into the disaster has revealed.
[...]
The report states that Brigadier General Michael D Barbero, commander of the Joint Readiness Training Centre at Fort Polk, Louisiana, refused permission for special forces units who volunteered to join relief efforts, to do so. General Barbero also refused to release other troops.

"The same general did take in some families from Hurricane Katrina, but only military families living off the base," the report says. "He has done a similar thing for military families displaced by Hurricane Rita. However, he declined to share water with the citizens of Leesville, who are out of water, and his civil affairs staff have to sneak off post in civilian clothes to help coordinate relief efforts." The report says deployment in the Iraq war led to serious problems. "Another major factor in the delayed response to the hurricane aftermath was that the bulk of the Louisiana and Mississippi National Guard was deployed in Iraq.

"Even though all the states have 'compacts' with each other, pledging to come to the aid of other states, it takes time, money and effort to activate and deploy National Guard troops from other states to fill in".

Mr Henthorne's report states: "The President has indicated several times that he wants the US military to take a more active role in disaster management and humanitarian assistance.

"There are several reasons why that will not happen easily. (1) Existing laws will not allow the police powers the military will need to be effective. (2) The military is not trained for such a mission and (3) the 'warfighter insurgency' within the US military does not want such a mission and will strongly resist it. Not one civil affairs unit was deployed for either hurricane."

The report concludes: "The one thing this disaster has demonstrated [is] the lack of coordinated, in-depth planning and training on all levels of Government, for any/all types of emergency contingencies. 9/11 was an exception because the geographical area was small and contained, but these two hurricanes have clearly demonstrated a national response weakness ... Failure to plan, and train properly has plagued US efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and now that failure has come home to roost in the United States."

* * * * * *

My Trip To Slidell - Your Help Is Needed!
by OtherDoug [Subscribe]
Mon Oct 3rd, 2005 at 20:38:16 PDT

This past weekend I was able to make a trip to Slidell, Louisiana to take supplies to Slidell High School and to some local residents who Barbara had worked with during her time there. The diaries that Barbara posted about her experiences there struck me deeply and I wanted to be able to do something for some of the people who have been most impacted by the hurricane and its aftermath.

I understand now, after returning from the trip, just how devastating the hurricane was and how inadequate the response. Slidell is making great strides to recover, but there are many people there who will need a great deal of help to recover. Perhaps this diary, along with the excellent work that Barbara has done, can help us figure out how to continue to help. It is still desperately needed.

This is a long diary, and I hope you'll take the time to read it. This is a topic we can't let slip away. There's still far too much suffering happening and we can help lessen it through our efforts.

[There are some of Barbara's photos of Katrina's aftermath posted in comments - take a look]
OtherDoug's diary :: ::

I had made the decision to go to Slidell almost two weeks ago, but put the trip off one week because of Hurricane Rita. The last thing I wanted to do was travel there to offer help and end up needing help myself. With the assistance of a handful of Kossacks I was able to get travel arrangements made, plan a route and get information for contacts in Slidell. tkn10015 got information on affordable travel to the region. quoaor agreed to meet me in Birmingham and help procure supplies to take down to Slidell. Barbara got me the names, addresses and phone numbers of folks in Slidell to deliver the material to. My sincere thanks to all of you.

I flew into Atlanta on Friday, Oct. 1, picked up a rental truck and drove to Birmingham. I met quoaor at the Costco there and he gave me a sizeable amount of tools, cleaning and school supplies. I spent Friday evening and Saturday morning stocking the truck with more cleaning and school supplies. Unfortunately, I only had a large pickup truck. I wish I could have rented something bigger and had the resources to fill it. Even then it wouldn't have been enough.

I traveled to Slidell Saturday afternoon and met Mr. William Percy, the principal of Slidell High School at around 6:00 pm. I was able to give him about 30 book bags, about 300 notebooks, a case of pens, a case of pencils and miscellaneous other school supplies that quoaor and I had purchased.

Mr. Percy explained that the high school will reopen today (Monday, October 3) and he knew that he'd be having about 300 students who are currently homeless to assist. About two hundred of them are from St. Tammany Parish where Slidell is located. About 100 of them are from other parishes closer to or in New Orleans. Those kids are displaced and will be attending Slidell High School until there home parishes recover. Most of those kids' families have lost nearly everything they own. Those families have bigger concerns at the moment than getting school supplies, so the material I was able to drop off will get distributed to them. Mr. Percy said he expected to get additional school supplies shipped in this week.

The high school usually has about 1900 students, but Mr. Percy had no real idea how many students he'd have there on Monday. The school was not flooded, but did take serious damage to the roof from winds and then water damage from wind driven rain. Mr. Percy said that they have only been able to get the school reopened because of the help of active duty military and national guards who came to Slidell. They've been working nonstop to get basic repairs made so that the school can open its doors this week. Mr. Percy commented that the two groups who have responded best to this disaster have been the military, who took charge as soon as they rolled into town, and the electric utility workers, who were were trying to get the electrical grid back up before the winds had even stopped blowing. Perhaps FEMA can take some lessons from these organizations. They clearly knew how to respond.

The high school will be doing needs assessments with the students who return, trying to determine what sort of assistance families need and how best to get them that assistance. He's had offers of help from about 7 or 8 school districts around the country, but he'll be letting us know what we can do as well. One immediate thing that he wants to work on is getting new school uniforms for all the kids who've been displaced or lost there homes and possessions. Having uniforms will help the kids feel less conspicuous and help them make the transition back to normal school life. That's something that we can do to help and as soon as I hear from him I'll post more.

After dropping off the materials to the high school I made my way to Old Slidell, the neighborhood where Barbara had been working. I was able to get directions from residents there to the house of Maxine Evans, one of the women who Barbara had been working closely with. She and Rev. Evans, her husband, got me over to St. Tammany Parish Jr. High School where drops of materials for local residents are being made. We unloaded the cleaning supplies and tools and watched as they got snapped up within minutes.

The neighborhood of Old Slidell is one of the oldest in the city, close to Lake Pontchartrain, but not immediately on it. The storm surge from Katrina flooded most of the neighborhood and stopped at Fremaux Avenue which seemed to mark the northern boundary of the neighborhood. This is historically the black area of the city and St. Tammany Jr. High School was the black high school during segregation. Today the neighborhood appears to be primarily African American, but not solely. The houses are generally small, with a single storey and many appear to date from the 19th century. They've all been flooded by storm surge, many of them submerged to the roof rafters. There were some beautiful examples of vernacular Louisiana architecture there, but I'm not sure how much of it will survive the damage.

Most residential neighborhoods in Slidell are sheltered from the sun by tall pines, but many of the pines were snapped off by the winds and smashed houses. I was going to say "damaged" but that doesn't do the effect justice. One house that I saw had been cut in two by a pine that fell right across the middle of the house. You could stand in the street and see right through to the back yard. It only had a single tarp over the roof peak. I can't imagine that it can be salvaged.

My rough estimate was that about 25% of the houses in the neighborhood had taken damage from falling trees. About another 50% had taken serious damage from winds. The residents have been able to clean out their houses and strip out waterlogged carpeting and plaster. Many of the houses are nothing but shells with bare wood studs inside with huge heaps of debris piled at the street edge. Those piles of debris are the entire possessions of the home owners. Those who were lucky had vehicles that they could use to take with them their most precious things. Many of the residents didn't appear to have cars, though, so they are left with just the empty shell of a house.

I had said that I would take pictures of what I saw in Slidell, but in the end I couldn't bring myself to take them. I honestly felt it would violate the dignity of the people there to take a picture of a storm damaged house with every last possession of the resident piled up outside waiting to be carted away. I hope that you'll all understand. Barbara has posted images in some of her diaries of the immediate aftermath of the storm. If you're interested in seeing the extent of the damage I hope you'll go back and read her diaries.

The good news is that the electricity was on. At least those folks whose houses had not taken damage from fallen trees and were built up above the floodplain could have some light and AC. Most of the houses were still dark.

More good news is that the trees have been removed from the houses that were occupied. The only houses I saw that still had trees in them appeared to be long vacant or to not have been visited by their owners since the storm.

The residents are trying to get things cleaned up right now, keep the houses dry and clean out all the mold that has formed since the flooding. It's a hell of a task, but they are making a lot of progress. There are local men and women working to clean up St. Tammany Jr. High School now. They gathered up the tools and industrial cleaning supplies that quoaor donated and put them to immediate use on the school. The bleach, rubber gloves, scrub brushes and dust masks that I brought down were snapped up by other local residents to use in fighting the mold.

The residents are really making a huge effort to recover and rebuild their neighborhood, but they just don't have the resources they need. In other neighborhoods with higher income residents commercial tarping services have covered up the wind damage to roofs and contractors have boarded up the sections of houses smashed by trees. In Old Slidell the residents don't have the resources to pay for those services. Most of the houses there that had wind damaged roofs don't have any tarping. The houses that were smashed by trees are lucky to have one tarp over them. And I suspect that some residents are living in the houses that were damaged by fallen trees even though they're now exposed to the weather.

The residents of Old Slidell need any help that folks can offer. Cleaning supplies and tools are in desperate need, as are tarps and plywood to cover storm damage. Most if not all of the residents lost their furniture, including beds and mattresses. They need cots, mattresses and bedding. If there are any folks out there who have the ability to make a trip like mine please do it! Anything you're able to bring down will get put to use and will make an immediate improvement in someone's life there. Contact me or Barbara if you're willing to make a trip. We can get you contacts in Slidell and a list of things that are needed immediately.

If you can't make the trip to Slidell, or other communities on the Gulf Coast that need help, keep alert for other Slidell diaries that will be posted. Once Slidell High School has completed the needs assessments for the families there we'll have a good idea what needs to be purchased, gathered and shipped down and we can start making arrangements to do it. We'll need your donations and your labor. If folks are interested we could start gathering pledges for assistance.

George Did It

The blogosphere is abuzz with the implications of George Step's assertion on this program this morning that a couple of sources had told him that George and Dick were both in on the early discussions of Joe Wilson and his wife.

At the risk of ending up with egg on my face, let me repeat what I've been saying (on BFA) from the beginning of the Plame controversy, that it was probably George W. Bush who let the cat out of the bag about Wilson's wife.

While he probably didn't have anything to do with sending Joe Wilson to Niger, to prove once and for all that no yellow cake had been ordered or purchased by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, so making the claim that it was wouldn't be revealing any secrets, when former Ambassador Wilson turned out not to appreciate having been made a patsy and complained about it in the New York Times, George W. may well have remembered Wilson from his days in the Administration of Poppy and popped up with the observation, "oh, yeah, that's the fellow who's got a wife in the CIA."

Which is why nobody remembered where they first heard it and why nobody knew her name, to begin with. Because George W. never remembers people's names--only the nicknames he gives them.

But that's not really important. What's important from where I sit is the pattern of going after political rivals by targeting their wives. Think of Edmund Muskie being brought near to tears because of vicious attacks on his wife. Think of Michael Dukakis being forced to defend Kitty from a hypothetical rape. Think of John McCain being accused of fathering a black baby because his wife adopted a brown baby. Think of Howard Dean having to justify why his physician wife continued caring for her patients instead of shaking (germy) hands on the campaign trail. Think of John Kerry's wife Teresa having to explain why her first husband left her a fortune that needs to be administered. In every instance there was an implication that the wives were flawed when, in fact, none were.

So, why would it not be logical to suggest that the same people who had engaged in this kind of underhanded attack weren't behind the assault on the reputation and career of Valerie Plame? The only difference is that this time the wife happens to "enjoy" the protection of the law. It's a crime to reveal the identity of a clandestine employee of the CIA.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the connection to the CIA, which the Bushes have gone to such great lengths to down-play, were to trip them up? Perhaps, in retrospect, it would have been smarter to be truthful about George's activities while he was AWOL from the National Guard. But Bush in the CIA is not to be talked about. Wasn't it strange that Jimmy Carter took him out of the top slot when the norm is for Agency heads to stay even as administrations change?

The Friendly American

Jeffrey Gedmin in Germany---

The Friendly American
by Kirsten Kueppers, 29.4.2003

When one's occupation doesn't trap one in the morning and then spit one out at 6:00 PM. When one is one's own occupation and work never stops. When one has no boss, but is the Direktor and heads up an Institute that supposed to bring Americans and Europeans together. When one is the American in Berlin, the days are filled with deadlines and people recognize one's face on the TV and cars slow on the street and drivers shout and when it seems that the whole world is full of people who either hate or love, nothing in between. When all this comes together, then one has to get up early to get things done.

Jeffrey Gedmin, the Director of the Aspen Institute, Berlin, has been awake today since five. Now it is nine and Reinhard Buetikofer has come to meet him at a cafe in the government center for breakfast, slings himself into a chair and cheerfully orders tea. And right away there's controversy.

Jeffrey Gedmin supports the war. He's been repeating it everywhere: on Sabine Christiansen's show, in newspaper articles and on the radio. "What do you want? A picture of Saddam Hussein having a beer with Ussama Bin Laden?" is what he started asking in the fall, long before the war in Iraq got underway. Gedmin was openly annoyed by the German Chancellor, by the local peace demonstrations and defended the American incursion into Iraq with caustic language.

That this fellow is sitting down with a Representative of the Greens, his "good friend Reinhardt Buetikofer" as he says, one who is trusted by the German government, which the neo-conservative Gedmin criticizes with such vehemence that one might think there's nothing to communicate, and engages in joking banter is enough to make one think.

But that's exactly what sets the 44 year old Jeffrey Gedmin apart. This tall man in a grey suit, who's been directing the Berlin Aspen Institute for over a year, who introduces himself to strangers with "Hi, I'm Jeff" and who's style has totally transformed the Institute, started in 1974 as a think tank. The relationship between Germany and America is currently not the best. Jeffrey Gedmin's job is to worry about that. But, instead of looking for union, he runs around and makes trouble. He projects power and polarization and meets his opponents for breakfast. What with this man?

The Aspen Institute is still a pretty bungalow on Schwanenwerder Island in the harbor, with a view of sailboats and water, financed by the Berlin Senate and staffed by a handful of co-workers and a cellar full of secretaries and one main employee. What used to be elite events have been moved into the cafes of the city where his many guests include, Henry Kissinger, Angela Merkel, along with the likes of Ralph Nader and the soon-to-be Premier of the Iraqi National Congress, Ahmed Chalabi.

"I'm more interested in critical conflict than consensus" he says. Jeffrey Gedmin used to be a high school teacher. Perhaps that's why.

He visits the bars in Kreuzberg on his discussion rounds, visits students in their digs in Prenzlauer Berg and talks with bus riders and the onhangers of the CDU. It's this constant churning in all directions, together with Gedmin's relentless support for the US Administration's war that has made the Aspen Institute a topic of conversation. That's why the phone is constantly ringing, the invitations are stacking up on the secretaries' desks and there's always a new journalist at the door when Gedmin arrives by taxi at the entrance.

So Gedmin blows into the Institute. It's 11:30 and everyone is waiting: the assistant, the technician, the reporter, a policeman. The police official is present because when the secretary opened up there was yet again something ugly hanging on the door. As so often in recent weeks, there was a transparent "Hate the American" on the door. Gedmin's been getting lots of emails--fan mail and hateful tirades from opponents who wish him death by Napalm, call him "Jew F!cker" and otherwise do not wish him well.
"On good days I don't take it personally," Jeffrey Gedmin says. He looks out the window. The sun is shining. Today is a good day.

If you ask, in spite of this, how comes it that someone can ellicit such strong emotions, you just have to watch what happens a few minutes later when a bus of American tourists arrives. They're the "Patrons of the Chicago Philharmonic Orchestra." The Aspen Institute is part of their Berlin tour program and Gedmin is supposed to enlighten them about the current German-american relationship.

He speaks for an hour. "Had we not put the subject of Saddam Hussein on the agenda, Gerhard Schroeder would never have taken interest in the human rights violations there," Gedmin yells. He pauses for effect.

The rich ladies from Michigan sip their apple juice and look sceptical. They do not know this fellow who sits himself at their table like a sympathetic young man and speaks and gestures like a practiced politician. Gedmin says the American President gets bad press in Germany; that the United Nations has proven itself as tired debating club in the face of international conflict; that the Americans sent their children to war and that Germany had tried its best to destroy the mission. And in that case, one can't really speak of an allied partner anymore. He doesn't believe America will attack Syria. He tells a few jokes. He says he knows almost nothing. He mentions the Pentagon and his listeners suspect that he has a whole head full of information, numbers and background knowledge; and he tells what his friends in the Bush Administration are thinking and relates what the cabbies in Berlin think. He seems to be an honest man.

It only last a little more than 60 minutes. The ladies came with a different perspective; now they have a new idea. Now they stand in the sun on the lawn and get their picture taken, arm in arm with their friend, Jeffrey Gedmin. It all looks very American, for a moment.

But then one can't stay with these new supporters because another journalist is waiting. Gedmin flies down the hall past his staff, who are all very happy with their boss. "We don't have to agree with him," says the Assistant "he can take criticism." "Those who wanted to go to the peace marches, got leave," relates one.
Perhaps it's because Gedmin isn't playing the big winner, even though the capture of Baghdad went quicker than expected. Maybe it's just the familiarity that suggests equality. The lady at the reception desk says, "He's still our Jeff."

And perhaps that's what Jeffrey Gedmin wants to show the Germans: that one can disagree and still not hate.

A few minutes later, he's off in his car to the city. He flies into the American coffeehouse, "Starbucks" in the Friedrichstrasse. He's in such a rush that his hair is blown back. "Starbucks" is Gedmin's second office. One after the other he meets with an Iranian exile, two Berlin students of politics and a BWL-Professor from Nuerenberg. There's a bit of fighting, little consensus, lots of discussion, and only the professor pats him on the back and says "Thank you for freeing Iraq."

At 7:30 Jeffrey Gedmin looks pretty tired and rubs his eyes. Now he's headed for the fitness studio. Then he has to write an article for the Washington Post. Tomorrow he'll get up at 4:30.

Fall