Author: paradocs

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:

….

…Blunt’s remarks place him in the ranks of angry cultural conservatives who would buck two centuries of tradition to achieve their ends…

….you probably don’t know Blunt thinks public schools should be able to post the Ten Commandments.

Or that he thinks elected officials should, as a “last resort,” refuse to carry out a judicial order. Or that he believes impeachment is a “reasonable solution” for judges who “consistently act in a manner that is conflict with the law of the values of Americans….”

…”Clearly I think school districts ought to be able to display the Ten Commandments”….

….”I would not look favorably on judges who kept Missourians from advancing legislation that was important to their values,” Blunt said….

…”I think it is dangerous when courts overstep their bounds and really delve too deeply into whether or not measures are constitutional and create arbitrary rights that don’t exist in the constitution,” Blunt said…

…Blunt apparently thinks his election in November enables him to define the “values” of Missouri Citizens. That seems a bit presumptuous for a politician elected with 50.8 percent of the vote…

I’m ashamed to say it, but I almost cannot bear to read each morning’s news from the war, or look at the photographs – images of vehicles on fire, of wrecked buildings, and of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians carrying their dead and wounded away.

In the first half of my newspaper life I traveled to a few nasty places, saw some dreadful things. That has been a long time ago. And I’m glad to be done with it.

Wars are news, I know. And so is politics. But there are plenty of other people writing politics. I do it reluctantly. And I am not sorry to have reached an age at which journalists are not asked to cover wars.

But I can’t escape what fills the columns of the morning papers….

….So I do not linger long over the day’s news. I read as much of it as I am able, then put it aside, although as I’ve said I’m ashamed of doing it. But the truth is, I have worse than that to be ashamed of.

I’m ashamed of believing that Saddam Hussein was worth the price of this thing we’re now caught up in.

And ashamed of my credulity in believing the false reasons given for undertaking it.

I’m ashamed of the suffering our mistakes have cost, and of the way in which we have so cavalierly alienated our friends and allies in the world.

I’m ashamed of having accepted, so willingly, the illusions about how this operation would end, when it is now clear the architects of it themselves had no understanding of the difficulty and no sensible plan.

All this is hindsight now. There’s no remedy for the regret. Except as a guide for the future, regret is useless. There’s but one constructive thing left to do, and I will do it again when the opportunity presents itself.

I will vote.

Military recruiters’ latest mission: Leave no schoolchild behind

Usually it pays to read the fine print….

….As a young man, I served two years on active duty in the infantry, and I am proud of that service. However that was in the middle 1950s, at a time between two wars…

…What I am against is sending men and women unprepared and ill-equipped into a war undertaken on false premises. I am against a leadership that so grotesquely miscalculated the capacities of the enemy, that it is incapable of conceding its own errors….

….When one of my own daughters was still in high school, a recruiting piece came in the mail, telling of the splendid benefits she would receive if she were to consider a tour of duty…

….that was long before Iraq. Before the “mission accomplished” spectacle on the deck of the aircraft carrier. Before the daily car bombings and the beheadings and the ever-growing body count…

…[recruitment] letters like that one addressed to our daughter – letters addressed to children – show up in mailboxes today. But they are no joke anymore.

They are cries of desperation from the architects of a mistaken and mismanaged adventure…

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
April 20, 2005

White House Press Briefing
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
12:26 P.M. EDT

….Q A follow-up on John Bolton — is that nomination lost?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, absolutely not. I think what you’re seeing is some Democrats on the committee trumping up allegations and making unsubstantiated accusations against someone the President believes will do an outstanding job at the United Nations. He is someone who has been an effective manager, a strong diplomat who has gotten things done. And I think he’s earned the respect of many people that he has worked with because of what he’s done.

The United Nations has a lot of important business before it right now. And we need to get him in office.

Q — apparently he didn’t think these were trumped-up allegations. He’s your guy on the committee. He’s a Republican.

MR. McCLELLAN: Let’s talk about what occurred here. Senate Democrats on the committee continue to bring up these allegations that are unsubstantiated, that are unfounded, that John Bolton has addressed in his testimony, in more than eight hours of testimony before the committee, that he’s addressed in written responses to follow-up questions, as well. And I think what you’re seeing is the ugly side of Washington, D.C., that people are playing politics with his nomination.

The United Nations has a lot of important business before it. We have a lot of important business before the United Nations. We need to get him in there. He’s exactly the kind of person we need at the United Nations during this time of reform.

In terms of Senator Voinovich, I understand he wasn’t able to attend the testimony last week by John Bolton. We are more than happy to answer any questions that he has, and we are in touch with him about those matters.

Q But, Scott, Mr. Bolton did not specifically answer the allegations that had been raised, under oath — not in some closet, but under oath, in front of the country, people came forward to say things that he had done as manager in the State Department that they believe render him unfit to be at the United Nations. And he hasn’t answered those allegations.

MR. McCLELLAN: Oh, I think he has responded to the questions. He responded in more than eight hours of testimony to some of the accusations that were made. This is someone who has served in government for quite some time, someone who has a proven record of being able to get things done, someone who shares the President’s commitment to making sure that we have effective multilateral organizations. And we are confident that the Senate will confirm his nomination. We hope that the Democrats on the committee would stop playing politics and stop raising these unsubstantiated accusations and move forward on a committee vote.

Q It’s not Democrats who are raising it — people who worked for him. So you’re saying they’re liars?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I think that these allegations have been addressed in his testimony and in written responses to the committee, as well. I don’t think I have any intention of going back through those allegations from this podium. We want to see him confirmed, and believe he will be….

….Q Scott, what’s the nature of the White House communication with Senator Voinovich now? You mentioned that you’re in touch with him. What’s the White House saying, and who’s talking to him?

MR. McCLELLAN: We’re in staff-level discussions with him to make sure he has answers to the questions he has.

Q Do you think he was misguided yesterday?

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of?

Q In terms of his discomfort with the Bolton nomination.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, look, I think that you had some Democrats on the committee that continue to lower the discourse and bring up unsubstantiated accusations. They continued to trump this up. And Senator Voinovich wasn’t able to attend the hearings last week where John Bolton addressed all these issues and so he had some questions. And we’re more than happy to address those questions with him, and that’s what we’re doing.

Q Are you suggesting that he was at fault for some reason in skipping that hearing?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, I think members of Congress have a lot of business that they have to focus on. I’m suggesting that — what the facts are, that Democrats on the committee are playing politics with this nomination. There is a, sometimes, a desire in this town to score political points. And that brings out the worst in Washington, D.C.

John Bolton is exactly the kind of person we need at the United Nations. The United Nations is in need of reform, they’re moving forward on reforms, and John Bolton is someone who understands the importance of making sure that multilateral organizations, like the United Nations, are effective and that they get things done. He has a proven record of getting things done. He was someone who worked closely with Russia on the Moscow Treaty, which is significantly reducing our nuclear arsenals. He is someone who was very involved in our efforts to get Libya to abandon their weapons of mass destruction programs. And he is someone who has a long record of results in getting things done. And sometimes you get people mad at you when you get things done. But we believe he’s a very capable individual and will do an outstanding job at the United Nations.

Q If I can follow on that, Scott —

….Q Scott, getting back to Bolton for a minute. You’re obviously —

MR. McCLELLAN: You jumped ahead of four people who had their hands up in your row.

Q Sorry.

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead.

Q I had my hand up, too. Getting back to the nomination —

MR. McCLELLAN: You stand out. (Laughter.)

Q I’ll take that as a compliment. Getting back to Bolton, your conversation with Voinovich, obviously, to try and resolve questions that he has. Are you encouraging the nominee to do the same sort of thing with anybody on the panel who has remaining questions, either answering things in writing or going beyond what he said in his testimony? Is there any effort to construct dialogue in that way —

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, as I said, I think he’s been through and addressed these issues, and we’re going to make sure that Senator Voinovich has answers to the questions that he wants answered. But I think John Bolton, through eight hours — more than eight hours of testimony, and through many, many written responses to questions that the committee had following that hearing, has addressed these issues.

Q And if that’s not enough for them, will you encourage him to go further?

MR. McCLELLAN: For who?….

…. Q With regard to the Bolton nomination, I’m trying to get my head around “unsubstantiated allegations.” With regard to the allegations of trying to have senior intelligence analysts removed from their portfolios, my understanding is that the allegations were made by those analysts, independent intelligence analysts, were substantiated by their superiors and have been corroborated by others, and even Mr. Bolton himself concurs that something occurred. So I’m not quite sure what “unsubstantiated” means about that one in particular.

MR. McCLELLAN: The accusations that are being made are unsubstantiated. Again, Democrats continue to raise them. These matters have been addressed before the committee. I’m not going to go and dignify these unsubstantiated accusations from this podium by responding to them.

He is someone who has great experience, solid expertise, and will do a great job at the United Nations. He’s been through these hearings, they’ve talked about these issues, he’s been over them, he’s responded to them in writing. And now is the time for the Senate to move forward on his nomination so that he can get about doing the business that we have before the United Nations.

I appreciate you wanting the testimony to be carried out here at the podium, but we believe those issues have been addressed by John Bolton himself.

Q So because — the people who made the allegations made them and others have corroborated them, so it seems to me that they may be disagreed with, but they weren’t necessarily unsubstantiated.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree. And John Bolton has been through this and addressed these allegations.

Democrats continue to play politics with his nominations. That’s what this is about. It’s an ugly side of Washington, D.C., it’s an unfortunate side of Washington, D.C., but we’re confident that he will be confirmed…..

Q For the members of the panel.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think Democrats are content to continue to play politics with his nomination. But there is a Republican member of the committee who was unable to be at some of the hearings, and he has some questions and we’ll make sure that those questions are addressed with him…..

In an extraordinary encounter last week with members of the Democratic State Central Committee, the senator was forced to defend his hawkish record by Myrna Watanabe, Harwinton’s town chairwoman.

Watanabe, a professional science writer who took notes on the exchange, told Lieberman that while she appreciated his “very good” voting record, she wanted to know how she could present him for re-election in her town when “our people are pretty pacifistic” and were opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning,” when “our people don’t support Rice,” and when “they are most unhappy with Gonzales.”

She said Lieberman responded that he does what he believes is right, that he didn’t want the war to be used as a litmus test, and finally that he didn’t have to come to Harwinton.

….Now, let’s get back to DTCs. If the state Democratic convention were held right now, Lieberman wouldn’t have the votes to get the nomination without doing some very, very, very serious arm twisting–and even then he might not have the votes. Maybe the population still likes Joe Lieberman, but his friends in the Democratic Party are having second or third thoughts about him. To some it’s the votes, to others it’s the war, to still others it’s the Dem-bashing rhetoric, while others are concerned about the spectacle of Lieberman at Bush’s elbow when Bush signs some particularly un-Democratic piece of legislation. But even more telling is that his good friends, people who’ve known him for 20 or 30 years and who came into politics with him or came up in the party with him, don’t want to be associated with him. Months and months ago, many of them, independently, contacted Joe or his close associates and made it clear that Joe was doing himself and the party no good by kowtowing to the Bushies and by continuing his strong support of the war.

After I asked my polite question to Lieberman at State Committee last week, I started getting emails and calls from people telling me that they, too, are seriously disturbed about Lieberman’s political stances. The day after the State Committee meeting, there was a meeting of 4th C.D. town chairs at which Mitchell Fuchs, the Fairfield DTC chair, lambasted Lieberman for his votes, his coziness with the Bushies, his stance on the war, etc. One town chair sent me the following email: “Tell him he doesn’t have to come to XXX either, unless it’s to announce he isn’t going to run again.” Another town chair told me, “We hate him here!” He probably doesn’t have many friends on State Committee either. When he responded to my question by saying that he had a 70 percent favorable rating, someone in the back yelled out, “From Republicans!”

As I see it, Lieberman has a choice: he can go forward, risk not being the party’s nominee, and come up with a third-party endorsement; switch to the Reps, with whom he will be very uncomfortable; do a mea culpa and take on the cloak of leadership of the Democratic Party (“I made a mistake on the war; I shouldn’t compromise with these people because there is no compromise; I will lead us out of this political morass.”); or declare that it’s time to retire and think of something else he can do as an elder statesman.

I suspect that Joe won’t like any of these choices. But he should have thought of that before he cuddled up with the Bushies. Yes, Joe, Democrats do have a litmus test. You have to support good Democratic principles, 24-7, every day of the year, every vote in the Senate (not exactly every vote; we’ll leave you some leeway, but on the big things, and especially in what you say and how you say it, you’ve got to prove you’re a Democrat). And you can’t sleep with the enemy because the stench of dead bodies stays on you.

….I think this should be all over the web. It’s not just us lefties who think Lieberman is an [xxxxxxx] who needs to “consider his options”

….Watanabe even says Lieberman’s presence at the top of the 2006 Democratic ticket has hurt candidate recruitment.

Again, Lieberman may be wildly popular with Connecticut Republicans, and (to a lesser degree) with self-identified Democrats. But those who know him well aren’t too pleased.

Will it be enough to spawn a strong primary challenger? We’ll see.

Sunday, April 10
LEGIONS

I turned on CNN this morning and heard a report from Baghdad about yesterday’s demonstration. The reporter said that two years ago “legions” of Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. The definition of legions -“The major unit of the Roman army consisting of 3,000 to 6,000 infantry troops and 100 to 200 cavalry troops.”

Were 3000 Iraqis involved in pulling down the statue? Not even close….

Army report confirms Psy-ops staged Saddam statue toppling

Jul 3, 2004 – An internal Army study of the war in Iraq has confirmed that the infamous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein in Firdos Square in central Baghdad on April 9, 2003 was stage-managed by American troops and not a spontaneous reaction by Iraqis. According to the study, a Marine colonel first decided to topple the statue, and an Army psychological operations unit turned the event into a propaganda moment.

At one point during the stunt Marines draped the statue of Saddam Hussein with an American flag. When the crowd reacted negatively to that gesture, the US flag was replaced with a pre-1990 Iraqi flag, missing the words “God is Great,” by a sergeant from the psychological operations unit. The Marines brought in cheering Iraqi children in order to make the scene appear authentic, the study said.

Allegations that the event was staged were made in April of last year, mostly by opponents of the war, but were ignored or ridiculed by the US government and most visible media outlets.

No News Is Good News
By Al Kamen
Friday, April 8, 2005; Page A23

The Pentagon often whines about how the U.S. media only harp on the negative in Iraq. But there’s some cheery, morale-building news about military-media relations in a recent internal Army study of its operations in the region around Mosul….

….the unit transported an embedded reporter to a site “where school supplies were to be handed out to needy students,” according to the Dec. 21 restricted “Official Use Only” report for the Center for Army Lessons Learned.

An excellent idea, but when they arrived at the school, the unit was “surprised to find that no schoolchildren were present and that an Iraqi family was homesteading in the building,” the report said. What’s more, “the Iraqi police were unwilling to remove the family and no school supplies” could be issued because the children were nowhere to be found….

….“Fortunately,” the Army folks said in their report, “the reporter elected not to cover the event, which could have made us look bad, since we didn’t know what was going on with the school after we funded its construction.” The reporter, who was not named, “understood what had happened and had other good coverage to use…rather than airing any of this event…..”

Gallup: Bush Approval Rating Lowest Ever for 2nd-Term Prez at this Point

By E&P Staff

Published: April 05, 2005 11:45 AM ET

NEW YORK President George W. Bush’s approval rating has plunged to the lowest level of any president since World War II at this point in his second term, the Gallup Organization reported today.

“All other presidents who were re-elected to a second term had approval ratings well above 50% in the March following their re-election,” Gallup reported. Bush’s current rating is 45%. The next lowest was Reagan with 56% in March 1985.

Gallup noted that more challenges lie ahead for Bush, including public doubts about his Social Security plan and Iraq policies.

Here are the ratings for presidents as recorded by Gallup in the March following their re-election:

Truman, 1949: 57%.

Eisenhower, 1957: 65%.

Johnson, 1965: 69%.

Nixon, 1973: 57%.

Reagan, 1985: 56%.

Clinton, 1997: 59%.

Bush, 2005: 45%.

US relied on ‘drunken liar’ to justify war….

….’Crazy’ Iraqi spy was full of misinformation, says report…

Edward Helmore in New York
Sunday April 3, 2005
The Observer

An alcoholic cousin of an aide to Ahmed Chalabi has emerged as the key source in the US rationale for going to war in Iraq.

According to a US presidential commission looking into pre-war intelligence failures, the basis for pivotal intelligence on Iraq’s alleged biological weapons programmes and fleet of mobile labs was a spy described as ‘crazy’ by his intelligence handlers and a ‘congenital liar’ by his friends.

The defector, given the code-name Curveball by the CIA, has emerged as the central figure in the corruption of US intelligence estimates on Iraq. Despite considerable doubts over Curveball’s credibility, his claims were included in the administration’s case for war without caveat….

Former CIA Chief Disputes Warning Over Iraq Data
Fri Apr 1, 7:26 PM ET
By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Former CIA Director George Tenet on Friday disputed that he was warned about problems with an Iraqi source just hours before Secretary of State Colin Powell argued the U.S. case against Iraq at the United Nations, using the source’s information.

A presidential commission issued a scathing report on Thursday about U.S. intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that said the Bush administration relied on unsubstantiated intelligence from an Iraqi chemical engineer code-named “Curveball” that Iraq had mobile biological weapons labs.

Tenet and his deputy John McLaughlin issued lengthy statements on Friday saying they were not alerted before the war to concerns about the veracity of the Iraqi source, who was being handled by German authorities….