$8.8 billion embezzled by the Coalition Provisional Authority

Well, well ,well. I saw this come up again on George Stephanapoulous' show today.
So let me get this straight. In one year of CPA, with all its American Enterprise Institute interns, running Iraq, $8.8 billion dollars was stolen or went missing. But everyone is supposed to be fired up about the oil for food program. A program that last ten years and did $67 billion of business, of which $2 billion was skimmed off the top. That tells me that Saddam should have gotten AEI interns to help him steal money. Saddam obviously had incompetent Iraqi crooks.

IRAQ: Audit Slams U.S. Handling of Iraqi Funds

The Coalition Provisional Authority may have paid salaries for thousands of nonexistent employees in Iraqi ministries, issued unauthorized multimillion-dollar contracts and provided little oversight of spending in possibly corrupt ministries, according to the report by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.


by T. Christian Miller, The Los Angeles Times
January 31st, 2005


WASHINGTON — The U.S.-led provisional government in charge of Iraq until last summer was unable to properly account for nearly $9 billion in Iraqi funds it was charged with safeguarding, according to a scathing audit report.

The Coalition Provisional Authority may have paid salaries for thousands of nonexistent employees in Iraqi ministries, issued unauthorized multimillion-dollar contracts and provided little oversight of spending in possibly corrupt ministries, according to the report by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

"While acknowledging the extraordinarily challenging threat environment that confronted the CPA throughout its existence and the number of actions taken by CPA to improve the [interim Iraqi government's] budgeting and financial management, we believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor management," the report says in its conclusion. An advance copy of the report, scheduled for release today, was obtained by The Times.

In a letter to Bowen, former agency administrator L. Paul Bremer III blasted the findings of a draft copy, saying that the report was filled with misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Bremer acknowledged that financial systems in Iraq were weak but said that Bowen failed to consider the U.S. mandate to quickly turn over control to an Iraqi government. The agency disbanded after transferring power to the interim Iraqi government in late June.

Bremer could not be reached for comment Sunday.

The "auditors presume that the coalition could achieve a standard of budgetary transparency and execution which even peaceful Western nations would have trouble meeting within a year, especially in the midst of war," Bremer wrote. "Given the situation the CPA found in Iraq at liberation, this is an unrealistic standard."

A Pentagon spokesman also disagreed with the report's conclusions, saying Sunday that the agency had implemented reforms to improve accountability.

"The CPA was operating under extraordinary conditions from its inception until mission completion," spokesman Bryan Whitman said in a statement. "Throughout, the CPA strived earnestly for sound management, transparency and oversight."

The audit adds to a growing body of evidence that the U.S.-led occupation government created a two-tier system of oversight that continues to severely hamper the rebuilding of Iraq.

U.S. taxpayer funds received relatively close scrutiny from dozens of federal auditors and investigators. Iraqi funds stemming from oil sales and assets seized from the regime of Saddam Hussein, however, appear to have been spent without controls designed to ensure accountability.

As a result, companies tapping into the $18.4 billion in U.S. reconstruction funds have moved slowly, partly due to security fears, but also due to worries about making financial missteps in the painstaking federal government contracting process. The delay has left many Iraqis without services such as electricity, water and transportation.

Contracts paid with Iraqi funds, however, were issued with little planning or oversight. Such contracts have frequently fallen prey to charges of fraud and cronyism, reinforcing the belief of many Iraqis that corruption continues to run rampant, even under U.S. oversight.

The view that there has been too much control over U.S. funds and too little over Iraqi money has fueled a sense among those who worked in Iraq that the reconstruction was deeply flawed from the start.

"We had too few contract officers and too much to do and high turnover," Col. Thomas X. Hammes, a professor at the National Defense University who participated in the rebuilding effort last year, said at a recent symposium on contractors in Iraq. "It was penny-wise and pound-foolish."

The audit being released today focuses on about $8.8 billion in Iraqi money from a development account that passed through the coalition authority to Iraqi ministries. Previous reports by a U.N.-appointed board also found problems with the account, the Development Fund for Iraq, which amassed $20.6 billion in oil revenue and assets during the agency's tenure in Iraq. One of the past audits, conducted by the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, found that oil proceeds had been properly accounted for but that there were insufficient controls over the fund.

Today's report finds that U.S. senior advisors attached to the ministries failed to exercise adequate oversight of the money. In one case, the coalition's main budget office had 12 of the 55 staff members that were needed, and most of them were "inexperienced recent college graduates," the report says.

In another case, the coalition awarded a $1.4-million contract to Northstar Consultants to review the controls over the development fund. The firm had no certified public accountant and did not perform the review, according to the report. Attempts to reach Northstar were unsuccessful Sunday.

In yet another case, a government consultant reviewed one ministry's budget in April 2004 and found that there were insufficient controls over a $435-million budget.

The financial process was "left open to fraud, kickbacks and misappropriation of funds," the report said.

The report singles out seven senior advisors for failing to provide adequate financial oversight at their ministries, though it does not identify them. In the past, senior advisors have described chaos in the ministries. Iraqi officials frequently ignored their advice, while U.S. officials paid little attention to their pleas for more help.

In February 2004, one advisor sent top CPA officials a plea for more guidance in performing his duties, according to an e-mail provided to Bowen.

The response: "There are no written guidelines delineating the senior advisors' role, responsibilities and authorities."

Party Headquarters

Democracy for Memphis has been having its meetings at Neil's bar. We would like to have our meetings at the Democratic Party Headquaters. DFM asked the new party Chairman if it could use the headquaters for its monthly meeting August 3rd. It was explained that the Executive Committee would have to vote on it. I hope that will be done at the first meeting Thursday. Democratic groups should not be forced to hold meetings in bars and libraries when there is a perfectly good headquarters lying dormant. Let the Democratic Party debate the value and possible uses of a headquaters. Many think it is a possible gold mine of potential party activity and organization. I'd like to know why people would be opposed to a headquarters.

Clean Money Elections

This is my true dream for Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, and the Nation. Clean money elections. I've done some research into this and I believe it would be the best thing to happen to Memphis. I know those with power and influence would hate it but it would bring truely a new day to this city. If you want to know if a politican really cares about the public good, ask him or her about publicly financed elections. Here's the basic idea.

Increase in money in elections

2004 Indiana governor race: 2 candidates spent $28 mil
2004 Missouri governor race: 3 candidates spent $25.5 mil up from $19 mil in 2000

2004 Indiana statehouse seat: 2 candidates spent $1 mil each

Point of clean elections:
• Increase voter choice by encouraging more candidates to run for office
• Increase electoral competition by having fewer uncontested races
• Reduce the influence of special interest groups and thereby enhance citizens’ confidence in government
• Curb increase in the cost of campaigns
• Increase voter participation and turnout

Places where public financed elections occur
• Maine-state and local elections
• Arizona-state and local, corporation commission
• North Carolina-state and supreme and appeals court
• California-local in Oakland, San Francisco, LA and three more large cites. Considering public financing for state level.
• New York City-local 4-to-1 system of matching contributions
• Portland, Oregon-local
• Austin, TX-local
• New Mexico-State Public Regulation Commission and trying to get Judicial elections
• Vermont-state and local

Places considering public financed elections
• Connecticut-state level
• Maryland-state level
• New Jersey-state level experiments in 2 districts
• West Virginia-state level
• Hawaii
• Minnesota
• Montana

Systems
Arizona: After the public voted in Arizona to support public elections, taxpayers now can choose to donate $ 5 of their tax return to a fund set up to finance candidates. More than 650,000 people in Arizona gave more than $ 3.2 million to help start the fund. The state's general revenue fund also chipped in, and Arizona ended up spending about $ 12 million to finance candidates.
Not every political candidate in Arizona has to use public money - people still can host fundraisers and take private donations if they choose not to participate in the state's system.
Candidates who want to use public financing first collect $ 5 donations and signatures from a specified number of people. Auditors check the signatures to make sure they aren't forged, Martinez said.
If candidates collect enough donations and signatures, they agree to not take any more public donations and use state funding determined by what position or seat they are after.

Connecticut: Qualifying candidates who agree to spending limits would be eligible for public money -- $3 million in the case of a candidate for governor, $150,000 for a state Senate race and $30,000 for a House campaign.

Maryland: Candidates for the state Senate or House could qualify for public funding by collecting $5 from 282 registered voters in that district. Candidates also would have to raise an additional $10,000 on their own and trade in the money in exchange for using the public money.
A Senate candidate then would receive $50,000 from the state for a contested primary and $50,000 for a contested general election. House candidates would receive $40,000 for a contested primary in a three-member district (slightly less for smaller districts) and $40,000 for a contested general election.
Candidates whose opponents opt out of the publicly funded system would be eligible for more public money if the opponents raise more than a certain amount.
Legislative analysts estimate the system would cost about $5 million a year.

New Jersey: To qualify, candidates must raise $20,000 from people in their district, including 1,000 contributions of $5 and at least 500 donations of $30.
Candidates will be able to collect 75 percent of the average amount spent in that district during the previous election, up to a total of $100,000.
The state will give candidates an extra $50,000 if an opponent uses private money to finance an election.

Results
California: Voter turnout is up, less money has been spent on campaigns and public trust has grown.

In both Maine and Arizona, the number of legislative candidates who chose to use public financing for their campaigns increased greatly from 2000 to 2002. In perspective, 59 percent of Maine’s and 36 percent of Arizona’s current legislators successfully ran as publicly financed candidates in the 2002 election. Also, in Arizona’s 2002 election, publicly financed candidates won seven of the nine available seats in races for statewide offices, including Governor. All four successful candidates for the corporation commission were publicly financed. There has also been an increase in minority and women candidates.
By 2005 in Maine, 83% of State Senate and 77% of the State House ran clean money campaigns. Overall increase of 12% in primary candidates.

Opposition
Attacks on reform measures have been waged in legislatures, courts and on the ballot. In Maine, the state legislature attempts to de-fund the public campaign funding program nearly every legislative session, while public campaign funding laws in Arizona face organized efforts to rollback reform by mounting court challenges and repealing the laws. Most recently, the voter-approved Clean Elections law in Massachusetts was repealed by a secret vote of the legislature in June 2003.

IRA Renounces Violence

I went to Belfast in 2003. It was truely surreal. The poor area of the city is divided between the Catholics and Protestants. You can tell who's area you are in by the painted sidewalks, red, white, and blue for Protestants and green, gold, and white for Catholics. One street was Catholic and the otherside was Protestant. In the worst areas, a giant fence was built, three stories tall. It was built that high because the two sides would catapult washing machines, refrigerators and other large projectiles at the houses on each side of the fence. There was a british army barracks on the top floor of an apartment building. The only way to get to the barracks was by helicopter. On Friday nights large gates between the Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods would be closed and not opened until early Monday. Another strange thing was the identification the two communities had with other conflicts. The Protestant neighborhoods had Israeli flags and Palestinain flags flew in Catholic neighborhoods. One things is true, at this point, the remaining fighters are nothing more thugs and criminal gangs particulary on the Protestant side. The justifications for the conflict are anarchronistic. The average Irishman is more wealthy than the average Englishman. Ireland has been a democracy for decades and the Protestants who live there have not been subjugated. The Republic of Ireland should be united with Northern Ireland, but if that doesn't happen, there is no need for violence.

As I.R.A. Backs Off, Loyalist Gangs Battle One Another
By BRIAN LAVERY
BELFAST, Northern Ireland, July 30 - The Protestant paramilitary groups who were the Irish Republican Army's ruthless foes for four decades say they will wait and see if the I.R.A. upholds its promise to disarm before they make any similar gestures. But these days, it almost seems the loyalists have already switched their focus, from fighting the I.R.A. to fighting one another.

In a town called Hollywood on the outskirts of Ulster's capital, police officers have had to set up nightly checkpoints to keep warring Protestant factions apart, at a cost of $53,000 per day. They acted after hundreds of people aligned with one loyalist gang drove another gang's families out of their homes last Wednesday. Residents say the victims were evicted for selling drugs, but police officers, who have seized around $700,000 worth of hashish in Hollywood in recent weeks, say the episode was part of a turf war between rival loyalist factions.

Peter Hain, appointed by Britain as secretary of state for Northern Ireland, followed up with a strongly worded rebuke of "gangsterism masquerading as loyalism," which he said is in "self-destruct mode."

Our Friend in Central Asia Told Us to Get out

This is what happenes when you deal with lunatic, authoritarian nuts. At least we are getting thrown out for a good reason. The UN flew out refugees after the crackdown by the government which killed up to 700 people. That little two bit dictator is walking a fine line. He may find himself at the wrong end of a bloody coup d'etat.

Uzbeks Order U.S. From Base in Refugee Rift
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
and THOM SHANKER
NYT
WASHINGTON, July 30 - Uzbekistan formally ordered the United States to leave an air base that has been a hub for operations in Afghanistan in protest over a predawn United Nations operation on Friday to spirit out refugees who had fled an uprising in Uzbekistan in May, senior State Department officials said Saturday.

The officials said Uzbekistan had given the United States 180 days to close the base, which has played a central role in rooting out fighters of the Taliban and Al Qaeda and in carrying out relief operations.

Harold Ford Channels FDR-Because It's the Right Thing to Say

At Saturday's Democratic "unity" meeting. Harold Ford invoked the name of Franklin and even Teddy Roosevelt. It sounded great. I'm a sucker for FDR references. He's my favorite President. The greatest of all modern Presidents and second only to Lincoln. Ford said all the right things, but something kept bothering me as I listened. I couldn't get out of my mind the disconnect between what FDR said and did and what Ford has done over the past 9 years.
FDR said in 1936, "We know that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob... I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it, the forces of selfishness and lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

Powerful words and just the tip of the iceberg of what policies FDR enacted to check the power of the rich. Now I look at Ford's actions. I'm extremely pleased about his voting against CAFTA, but maybe he was feeling the heat from the bankruptcy bill. Plus it was a 217 to 215 vote. Plenty of political cover there. I personally always like to judge a politican by who gives him money. As a general rule people don't give money for nothing. Here are the top 20 industry givers to Ford for 2004.
Securities & Investment $205,559
Lawyers/Law Firms $155,622
Commercial Banks $88,130
Real Estate $79,082
Health Professionals $71,600
Insurance $57,999
TV/Movies/Music $56,850
Misc Finance $49,050
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $42,150
Business Services $40,050
Lobbyists $36,392
Building Trade Unions $33,500
Automotive $33,500
Beer, Wine & Liquor $33,000
Finance/Credit Companies $31,000
Retired $30,850
Computers/Internet $30,050
Misc Business $25,790
Retail Sales $24,750
Food & Beverage $23,750

Now here are the donors who gave over $7000 in 2004 campaign cycle.
Uaw - V - Cap (Uaw Voluntary Community Action Program) $7,000
Independent Community Bankers Of America Political Action Committee $7,000
Association Of Trial Lawyers Of America Political Action Committee $7,000
Amsouth Bank Political Action Committee $7,000
Build Political Action Committee Of The National Association Of Home Builders $7,500
American Bankers Association Pac (Bankpac) $7,500
Eli Lilly And Company Political Action Committee $7,750
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Political Action Committee, The $9,000
Bank Of America Corporation State And Federal Political Action Committee $9,000
Federal National Mortgage Association Poltical Action Committee Aka Fannie Mae Pac $9,500
Ubs Americas Fund For Better Government $9,500
Dealers Election Action Committee Of The National Automobile Dealers Association (Nada) $9,500
credit union national association $9,750
International Brotherhood Of Electrical Workers Committee On Political Education $10,000
Sheet Metal Workers' International Association Political Action League $10,000
Laborers' Political League-Laborers' International Union Of Na $10,000
National Association Of Realtors Political Action Committee $10,000
Federal Express Political Action Committee $10,550
ziffren, brittenham et al $10,750
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Pac For Responsible Government $12,250
Cablevision Systems Corporation Political Action Committee $12,250
Southern Company $12,500
hbj investments $13,000
ncycles $14,000
bank of america $16,000
Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation Gov'T Action Fund $20,250
National Beer Wholesalers Association Political Action Committee $20,500
friedman, billings & ramsey $30,060

Lots of banks, investment companies, and such.
Yes, when I think of of all the great things things FDR did, I remember how Banks and investment companies were so supportive of his policies. And I'm sure if FDR were around today the financial groups, banks, pharmacueticals, Walmart, and Cable vision would just love him. I'm confident that's why these groups love Harold Ford, because of his shared vision with FDR.
I know of a great person with stature across this state, who would fight for Roosevelt style, democratic ideals and who would most importantly have a really good shot at winning. No one doubts what this person says and he/she wouldn't have to reinvent himself for this Senate election. So far this person has not entered the race.

Oh yeah, one more quote from the greatest President of all time.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Lincoln, 1861.

Declining Wages in the US

Here's a nice simple chart to show the decline wages in the US. So as the economy grows, why doesn't wages? Those tax cuts for the rich are doing wonders for the middle and lower classes.

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/realer.t02.htm

French Family Values

French Family Values
nyt
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?

Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?

The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.

First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.

It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.

O.K., I'm oversimplifying a bit. There are several reasons why the French put in fewer hours of work per capita than we do. One is that some of the French would like to work, but can't: France's unemployment rate, which tends to run about four percentage points higher than the U.S. rate, is a real problem. Another is that many French citizens retire early. But the main story is that full-time French workers work shorter weeks and take more vacations than full-time American workers.

The point is that to the extent that the French have less income than we do, it's mainly a matter of choice. And to see the consequences of that choice, let's ask how the situation of a typical middle-class family in France compares with that of its American counterpart.

The French family, without question, has lower disposable income. This translates into lower personal consumption: a smaller car, a smaller house, less eating out.

But there are compensations for this lower level of consumption. Because French schools are good across the country, the French family doesn't have to worry as much about getting its children into a good school district. Nor does the French family, with guaranteed access to excellent health care, have to worry about losing health insurance or being driven into bankruptcy by medical bills.

Perhaps even more important, however, the members of that French family are compensated for their lower income with much more time together. Fully employed French workers average about seven weeks of paid vacation a year. In America, that figure is less than four.

So which society has made the better choice?

I've been looking at a new study of international differences in working hours by Alberto Alesina and Edward Glaeser, at Harvard, and Bruce Sacerdote, at Dartmouth. The study's main point is that differences in government regulations, rather than culture (or taxes), explain why Europeans work less than Americans.

But the study also suggests that in this case, government regulations actually allow people to make a desirable tradeoff - to modestly lower income in return for more time with friends and family - the kind of deal an individual would find hard to negotiate. The authors write: "It is hard to obtain more vacation for yourself from your employer and even harder, if you do, to coordinate with all your friends to get the same deal and go on vacation together."

And they even offer some statistical evidence that working fewer hours makes Europeans happier, despite the loss of potential income.

It's not a definitive result, and as they note, the whole subject is "politically charged." But let me make an observation: some of that political charge seems to have the wrong sign.

American conservatives despise European welfare states like France. Yet many of them stress the importance of "family values." And whatever else you may say about French economic policies, they seem extremely supportive of the family as an institution. Senator Rick Santorum, are you reading this?

Ocean Biodiversity Collapsing

When I was living in Tonga, I could buy 1 kilo tuna steaks for $2.50. Tonga is so far out in the Pacicfic that it has one of the last Tuna fisheries in the world. The Chinese were pushing hard for fishing rights to the area. There really needed to be global fishing agreements on tonnage caught and areas fished 20 years ago. I'm worried that the oceans are past the point of being able to recover.

Oceans Have Fewer Kinds Of Fish
Overfishing Among Causes, Study Says

By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A03

The variety of species in the world's oceans has dropped by as much as 50 percent in the past 50 years, according to a paper published today in the journal Science.

A combination of overfishing, habitat destruction and climate change has narrowed the range of fish across the globe, wrote biologists Boris Worm and Ransom A. Myers of Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia and three other scientists. In some areas, such as off northwest Australia where a wide variety of tuna and billfish used to thrive, diversity has declined precipitously.

"Where you used to put out a fishing line 50 years ago and catch 10 species, now you catch five species for the same amount of effort," Worm said in an interview yesterday. "That's a recipe for ecological collapse and disaster."

Nancy Pelosi Finally Decides to Hold People Responsible

It's about time Nancy Pelosi started cracking heads. She can use a sledgehammer on Tanner.

Pelosi Calls Steering Meeting to Review Defectors' Votes for CAFTA
July 28, 2005
By Erin P. Billings,
Roll Call Staff

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), angry that some of her own betrayed the party on a key trade vote, called a last-minute, Members-only meeting tonight to review the early-morning balloting and the reasoning behind defectors' votes.

Pelosi called for the special session of the Democratic Steering and Policy Committee at a private whip meeting this morning, during which she said she "had a sleepless night" over the Central American Free Trade Agreement vote that narrowly passed early in the morning. Sources in the room said Pelosi was furious at the outcome and the votes of some of the 15 Democrats -- notably some in safe districts -- who joined the Republicans to pass the bill.

"I've never seen her like that," described one Democratic aide ...

While sources insisted Pelosi has not called for any retribution in the Democratic Caucus, she left open the likelihood that defectors' committee assignments would be reviewed at tonight's meeting of the Steering Committee, which helps determine Members' placement on panels.

"There's going to be a lot of discussion at the meeting, however it's going to focus on a certain group of Members who have no explanation for their votes. That's what it's going to focus on," said a senior Democratic aide. "There are a handful of members who have explaining to do."

Another leadership aide said, "there are Members who have questions" about why some of their colleagues voted for the bill, and they want a venue to discuss the outcome. This source said it was unclear whether Members' committee assignments would be in peril.

"There are Members who don't seem to have any sort of reason for voting the way they voted," this aide said. "While other Members who have tougher districts made the tough decisions."

Pelosi, according to sources, told Members at the whip meeting that there are "expectations" that come with top committee assignments. She said both privately and publicly that the votes would be reviewed on "a case-by-case basis," noting that many of the 15 defectors needed to vote for the bill given their districts and political situations. A good share of the 15 are vulnerable Members facing tough re-elections.

"I think we will have some conversations in our Caucus," she said at a press conference. "These are 15 different people. Judgments are different for different people."

Pelosi added: "It's not about retribution. It's about managing these votes."

Sources said many Members and leaders are also concerned about alleged deal-making that ensued leading up to the vote. Pelosi told reporters the House floor turned into an episode of "Let's Make a Deal" ...

She even charged that ethics rules may have been broken, and that some Democratic Members who were approached may be considering filing a complaint.

"I think this has to stop, we have to stop this Republican rip off," Pelosi said. ...

Several Democratic sources said Pelosi and other House leaders are particularly upset with New York Reps. Greg Meeks and Ed Towns, members of exclusive committees with safe seats ...

Meeks insisted he voted for the measure because it was good for the economy and job base of New York as well as Latin America. He said he was lobbied heavily on both sides and offers were flying, but he refused to take any deals.

[...]

Meeks said he "knows many of my colleagues are disappointed" [but] his colleagues know he is with them "90 percent of the time" and on this particular bill they simply "have a difference of opinion."

But some Members and aides said the vote might not be that easy to get over.

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), the Senior Chief Deputy Minority Whip, privately told Members on Thursday morning that he was extremely disappointed in the vote, and made clear that Democratic votes should not be for sale. He said later he thought "some of my friends cast their votes for special interests."

[.....]

"We've got to talk it out, we've got to talk this out," he said. "In the final outcome, I don't think people are going to forget what happened. Members who didn't have to worry about their future and who are in very safe districts didn't have to vote the way they did."

Judge Roberts connection to the 2000 election recount

What great SCOTUS judge selections republicans choose. Rhenquist became famous in republican circles by running voter suppression operations in the early 60's in Arizona. Now this federalist society tool, that worked for Rhenquist at the Supreme Court, gets nominated for the Supreme Court as a reward for helping steal a Presidential election. Staying true to republican form.

From the Miami Herald
TALLAHASSEE - U.S. Supreme Court nominee John Roberts played a broader behind-the-scenes role for the Republican camp in the aftermath of the 2000 election than previously reported -- as legal consultant, lawsuit editor and prep coach for arguments before the nation's highest court, according to the man who drafted him for the job.

Ted Cruz, a domestic policy advisor for President Bush and who is now Texas' solicitor general, said Roberts was one of the first names he thought of while he and another attorney drafted the Republican legal dream team of litigation ''lions'' and ''800-pound gorillas,'' which ultimately consisted of 400 attorneys in Florida...

Soon after getting the call from Cruz, Roberts traveled from his Washington office at Hogan & Hartson to Tallahassee to lend advice and help polish legal briefs. Later, Roberts participated in a dress rehearsal to prepare the Bush legal team for the U.S. Supreme Court.
When it comes to his meeting with Roberts, the governor said Roberts flew down to Tallahassee, on his own dime, to meet for 30 minutes sometime in November or December to discuss the governor's role in certifying the election. Cruz, who had also met with the governor, said he believed that Roberts was already in Tallahassee and simply walked up the hill from the GOP headquarters to meet the governor.

Ted Olson, the lawyer who successfully argued George W. Bush's case before the U.S. Supreme Court, said Roberts helped, but couldn't recall what legal briefs, if any, Roberts reviewed. Olson said he was certain that Roberts participated in a ''moot court'' hearing to prep him for arguments before the high court in the first of two hearings.

''It was a conference room full of people and John was there. I had known him for 20 years by that point, and I highly respected his opinions,'' Olson said.

Oh-2nd District heating up

the 2nd Congressional district race is really heating. Paul Hackett is only 5 percentage point behind Schmidt and gaining ground fast. No democrat has polled more than 30% there in over 20 years. Now that republicans are feeling the heat they are beginning to turn on themselves. Libertarians vs. Social conservatiive/big-gov statists. Look at this ad being run by conservatives against Schmidt. Only 6 days until the election.

The Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes announced today that it is launching a radio campaign urging Republicans, conservatives and advocates of limited government to stay at home on Tuesday and cautioning voters not to vote for Republican Jean Schmidt. COAST charged that Schmidt has been posing in the campaign as an advocate of limited government and lower taxes, when the truth is the exact opposite. The script for the radio spot is attached.

"During her tenure in the Ohio legislature, Jean Schmidt voted in favor of every single one of Bob Taft's tax increases, and for good measure, proposed more of her own," said COAST Chairman Jim Urling. "In her recent literature she says that she supports 'limited government and lower taxes.' Indeed, her voting record decidedly shows her beliefs are in bigger government and in higher taxes. She simply is a big-government advocate. Any statement by her to the contrary is a lie."

"COAST encourages its members and all those believing in limited government and lower taxes to stay home on Tuesday, election day," implored Urling. "Another primary and general election will be held in 2006 and we will elect a good representative at that time. Please do not cast a vote for Jean Schmidt -- it will be wasted."

You Want to Know Why the DLC Sucks- Read This

Highlights of an article in 2001 about the DLC

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

"There's a New Democrat audience of about 5,000 to 10,000 people who get our stuff on a regular basis," says Matthew Frankel, the DLC's spokesman.

The DLC and its think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), have blossomed into a $7-million-a-year operation. The New Democrat Network (NDN), which provides funds to dozens of certified co-thinkers in federal, state, and local races, raised nearly $6 million last year. Twenty U.S. senators and 70 members of the House of Representatives have formally affiliated themselves with New Democrat caucuses

The DLC board of trustees is an elite body whose membership is reserved for major donors, and many of the trustees are financial wheeler-dealers who run investment companies and capital management firms--though senior executives from a handful of corporations, such as Koch, Aetna, and Coca-Cola, are included.

Today, Lewan helps recruit support for the DLC on K Street. "It's astonishing to me how much support the DLC is getting from the professional Washington people, the lawyers, the lobbyists," he says. "There's a relationship and a trust level that's been built up."

Minnesota Senator Paul Wellstone, who is considering helping to organize a grass-roots-based, left-wing alternative to the DLC, sees the DLC as partly responsible for making the Democrats "much more of a money party and less of a grass-roots party." He adds: "The imperative of fundraising has weakened the policy performance. Whether or not the DLC should get most of the credit or not, I don't know. Certainly that is the direction that President Clinton took the party."

Holy Crap! Daisy Duke Says Iraq Is F-ed Up.

You know Iraq is a complete fucking disaster when Jessica Simpson complains about censorship of negative images. Is there anyone left who thinks we only get propaganda in MSM out of Iraq.

From Contactmusic.com
SIMPSON UPSET ABOUT MISSING IRAQ FOOTAGE

JESSICA SIMPSON wants to know where missing footage of her and husband NICK LACHEY's harrowing trip to Iraq got to - because she thinks Americans would like to see just how bad conditions are there.

The pop singers-turned-reality TV couple travelled to the war-torn nation to visit US troops as part of a recent ABC TV variety special, and they were both left shellshocked by what they saw.

But all the controversial moments and harrowing footage of the trip didn't appear in the fun-filled TV show.

Simpson says, "It was unbelievable. They didn't show a lot of what really went on with the enemy attacks and the shelling. There was so much stuff that went on and som

ehow the tapes got mysteriously misplaced.

"It put everything in perspective for me. It really did teach me the definition of sacrifice. I can't even fathom being out there right now. I was ready to come home."

Will American Troops Be Leaving Iraq?

The statements from the Pentagon about troop withdrawals are either A) empty political spin to take pressure of the President or B) preparing the US to cut and run, leaving Iraq in a civil war. No matter what, the Pentagon and Administration are lying.

Overflowing morgue testament to Iraq's mayhem
27 Jul 2005 13:31:39 GMT

Source: Reuters

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD, July 27 (Reuters) - If anyone had any lingering doubts about the full extent of violence in Iraq, they need only visit Baghdad's morgue.

The fridges and autopsy rooms of the beige stone block are crammed full of corpses, some of them so badly mutilated or decomposed that identification is nearly impossible.

Every day, around 30 new bodies arrive, the latest victims of a two-year wave of war, crime and insurgency that has left coroners struggling to keep up with the chaos.

All are classified as "suspicious deaths" and the vast majority have been shot, says Faik Amin Baker, the director of the Medical Legal Institute, which oversees the morgue.

More alarming still is that these are only the bodies that require an autopsy; they do not include those that die of natural causes or in attacks where the cause of death is clear.

"Before the war we used to get maybe 250 bodies a month. Now it is 800 or 900 a month from the Baghdad area alone," says Baker, who trained at Guy's Hospital in London and has overseen operations at the morgue for the past 15 years.

"The situation has worsened dramatically. We cannot cope."

While it is difficult to make comparisons with other violent cities around the world because Iraq is also a war zone, the number would give Baghdad a rate of somewhere around 230 "suspicious deaths" each year for every 100,000 residents.

In Bogota, Colombia, often considered one of the most violent cities in the world, the murder rate seldom exceeded 90 per 100,000 even at the peak of the 1990s drug wars.

Bush Approval Ratings

Quinnipiac Univ. 7/21-25. MoE 3.2% (May 25)


Bush approval ratings

Approve 41 (44)
Disapprove 53 (50)

What legalized abortion looks like in some states today

From Salon.com
A piece in USA Today by Laura Vanderkam suggests that without Roe the U.S. won't really be that much different than it is now.
Her argument: the states most likely to actually outlaw abortion, already have remarkably few abortion providers: "In Mississippi, Kentucky and the Dakotas, 98% of counties have no abortion providers; in Missouri and Nebraska, 97% lack them. In these Roe-unfriendly states, women already have to travel hours to obtain abortions; in a post-Roe world of crossing state lines, that story wouldn't change," she writes.

Russ Feingold Gets It

Published on Tuesday, July 26, 2005 by the Star Tribune (Minneapolis, Minnesota)
Time to Put Curbs on Lobbying
by Russ Feingold


Each year, for the last 12 years, I travel to all 72 counties in Wisconsin and hold a listening session. Anyone is welcome to attend these open meetings -- you don't need to give me a campaign contribution or buy me a meal. Attendees are there to let me know what's on their mind.

This is what lobbying should be about -- ordinary people meeting with their elected representatives to ask questions and throw out ideas.

Unfortunately, this is not what most lobbying looks like in Washington, D.C. In the last six months, we have seen stories of lobbyists funding international junkets for members, which include days on famous golf courses and nights in luxurious resorts. And we have heard reports of lobbyists providing members with free access to their companies' or clients' corporate jets.

I have devoted a great deal of time to reforming our campaign finance laws so as to reduce the influence of special interests and return some measure of power to the American people. But campaign contributions are only part of the story. According to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbying expenditures in 2003-04 totaled $5.4 billion -- twice what candidates spent running for federal office.

That's why I have introduced legislation that would toughen the lobbying disclosure and gift rules for the first time in a decade -- to ensure better public disclosure about the activities of lobbyists and reduce the opportunities for private gain by those who serve the public.

My bill has several components. First, it would beef up transparency and disclosure requirements by making lobbyists disclose details about their expenditures on lobbying and the names of members of Congress or senior executive branch officials with whom they speak. It also mandates that the true identities of those behind anonymous lobbying coalitions be revealed. All the information provided in these reports will be included in a searchable online database that will allow the public to find information on lobbyists quickly and efficiently.

Second, the bill slows the revolving door between government and business by extending both the length and the scope of the "cooling-off" period for senior government officials who head into private practice.

The bill also puts public responsibility before personal gain by prohibiting lobbyists from planning, financing organizing or taking part in trips for Members and staff. It also requires Members and campaigns who use corporate jets to pay for the actual cost of the plane -- right now, all they have to do is a write a check for the equivalent of a first class ticket.

Finally, the bill prohibits registered lobbyists from giving gifts to members and staff. In my office, of course, we follow Wisconsin state ethics rules -- we don't accept gifts from anyone. I worked hard in 1995 to get the current congressional gift rules put in place. But I was only able to get the Senate to agree to limit dinners, tickets, and other gifts to a value of no more than $50, with a total cap of $100 per year from a single source. It has now become clear that lobbyists and members exploit these thresholds right and left. Even in Washington, D.C., $50 can buy a pretty good dinner, and it can buy a lot of drinks for staffers at a local bar after work. It's time for Congress to go cold turkey and stop feeding at the lobbyist-funded trough.

Ten years ago, Republicans took control of Congress with a pledge to "transform the way Congress works." But despite some initial productive steps, ordinary citizens continue to feel that their voices are drowned out by those of powerful, well-funded and well-connected special interests. Members of Congress need to spend more time listening to their constituents -- even the ones who don't have private jets.

Russ Feingold, D-Wis., serves in the U.S. Senate.

I'm Feeling More Confident

U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War
WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.
In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Well if Rumsfeld thought it up, it must be a good idea. Look how successful he's been so far. GWOT out, GSAVE in!

Congress for Sale

This is the biggest threat to our democracy and the by-product of Tom Delay's K-Street project. We must have publicly financed local, state, and federal elections with set amounts of free advertising on the airwaves. All other campaign finance reform is window dressing.
Hill a Steppingstone to K Street for Some
More Ex-Lawmakers Who Join Private Sector Are Becoming Lobbyists, Study Says

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 27, 2005; Page A19

Election to Congress used to be an end in itself. Now, for nearly half of federal lawmakers, it is a steppingstone to a second career: lobbying.

A new study has found that 43 percent of the 198 House and Senate members who left government to join private life since 1998 have registered to lobby. Of the 36 senators who left during that period, half have joined the lobbying ranks.

Republican lawmakers have become lobbyists at a faster rate than Democrats, a fact that reflects GOP control of the White House and Congress in recent years. Nearly 52 percent of Republican lawmakers who moved to the private sector since 1998 have registered as lobbyists, the study said. Only a third of departing Democrats took the same path.
Congressional historians say that lawmakers rarely became lobbyists as recently as two decades ago. They considered the profession to be tainted and unworthy of once-elected officials such as themselves. And lobbying firms and trade groups were leery of hiring former members of Congress because they were reputed to be lazy as lobbyists, unwilling to ask former colleagues for favors.

How to contribute to Paul Hackett's Campaign in Ohio

Here is a place to contribute to Paul Hackett's campaign. The election is in eight days. http://www.actblue.com/list/hackett
I just gave $25 to help kick republican ass!

2nd District Congressional Race in Ohio

This race will be a bell-weather for 2006. If Democrats can't win with an Iraq war vet Marine candidate going against a republican with ethical problems, than it is truely hopeless for the Democratic Party. Jesus-land drank the magic cool-aid and it's game over. Here are some exerts from a Salon.com article.

Dogfight in Ohio
By Bill Frogameni
On the issues, the candidates both describe themselves as fiscal conservatives, but on the Iraq war and the so-called moral values questions, they stand in stark relief. Hackett is a critic of Bush's Iraq war policy and believes America was led to war unnecessarily. Schmidt is a strong backer of Bush's handling of the war. Hackett is pro-choice. Schmidt is president of Cincinnati Right to Life. Schmidt voted against gay marriage in the Ohio House of Representatives, while Hackett's take is: "Gay marriage -- who the hell cares?"
Hackett, who is married, says he doesn't feel the need to defend his marriage through the national Defense of Marriage Act, or any other anti-gay marriage legislation. "If you're gay you're gay -- more power to you," he said. "What you want is to be treated fairly by the law and any American who doesn't think that should be the case is, frankly, un-American."
Schmidt commends Hackett for his service, but believes Hackett should "stand with the president" by "supporting the Iraqi war effort and our troops that are over there," her campaign manager Joe Braun said. (Through Braun, Schmidt declined to speak with Salon.) When asked to answer that charge, Hackett is blunt: "The only way I know how to support the troops is by going over there." He doesn't hesitate to criticize Schmidt's support of the war: "All the chicken hawks back here who said, 'Oh, Iraq is talking bad about us. They're going to threaten us' -- look, if you really believe that, you leave your wife and three kids and go sign up for the Army or Marines and go over there and fight. Otherwise, shut your mouth."

Then there's the $10,000 that Schmidt's campaign accepted from one of Tom DeLay's political action committees. Hackett criticized Schmidt for taking DeLay's money. "Tom DeLay," says Hackett, "is the poster child for corruption in Washington."
Finally, a Cincinnati paper ran a report last week suggesting that Fritz Wenzel, Schmidt's media manager, was working for her campaign while simultaneously working as the top political reporter and columnist at the Blade, Toledo's news daily and a major Ohio paper. Wenzel's last day at the Blade was Friday, May 13. Two weeks before he left to become a political consultant, according to the report, Wenzel made scathing comments about Schmidt's Republican primary opponents on a personal blog he maintained. The blog entries have since been pulled off the Web, and reports filed with the Federal Election Commission show that Wenzel's company, Wenzel Strategies, was paid $30,000 on Monday, May 16, by the Schmidt campaign.
May 16 was also the day his last column ran in the Blade, but Wenzel made public his plans to start a consulting business weeks prior to that. Braun praises Wenzel's work and denies Wenzel was working for Schmidt inappropriately. Wenzel and Braun both claim Wenzel drummed up the work for Schmidt over the weekend after he left the Blade. "I had a busy weekend," Wenzel reportedly told the Cincinnati paper. Hackett doesn't buy this explanation. "It's more of the same," he says, lumping this alleged ethical lapse in with the others. "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck."

DLC-"We like Being in the Minority Party"

Clinton's New Job: Defining the Center
• Party moderates pick the New York senator to draft a plan to craft the Democrats' agenda.

By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, on Monday named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.

The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton — once considered a champion of the party's left — with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion.
-This is the final straw for me supporting Hillary Clinton in the primaries. She’s thrown in with the DLC. I’m a yellow dog democrat, not a blue dog.

"Now, I know the DLC has taken some shots from some within our party, and that it has returned fire too," she told the gathering in Columbus. "Well, I think it's high time for a cease-fire — time for all Democrats to work together based on the fundamental values we all share."
The DLC helped formulate key "New Democrat" ideas for Bill Clinton's 1992 presidential campaign, such as welfare reform and national service. Clinton was the group's chairman from 1990 through 1991 and brought many figures involved with it into his two administrations.

Since Clinton left office, a broad array of liberal activists, many of them clustered around left-leaning websites such as the Daily Kos, have accused the DLC of weakening the party by advocating positions they say have blurred distinctions with the GOP. These include support for the Iraq war and free-trade policies.

David Sirota, a Democratic consultant who has his own liberal Web log, responded to news of the "American Dream Initiative" by warning that Democrats would be doomed to "permanent minority status" if they followed the DLC direction.
-Sirota is right. DLC strategy is all about triangulation. Remember, Clinton never won a majority. He always had crazy Ross Perot to split the vote. Clinton based his elections on his own charisma and never helped build up the party infrastructure. Party infrastructure for Clinton was having rich people stay in the Lincoln bedroom. Howard Dean is building party infrastructure, with little help from the DLC.
"The fact is, the Democratic Party has to make a choice: Is it going to continue to follow the DLC, be a wholly owned subsidiary of corporate America, and lose elections for the infinite future," he wrote in an e-mail. "Or is it going to go back to its roots of really representing the middle class and standing up for ordinary people's economic rights?"
-DLC means Dick Licking Corporatists. Stopping selling your soul for corporate donations.
All this suggests strains could develop between Clinton's desire, as a potential 2008 contender, to write a plan popular with as wide an array of Democrats as possible and the DLC's hope of crafting a sharply focused, centrist political roadmap.
-Sharply focused centrist is an oxymoron. Centrist means you don’t really believe in anything. After 8 years of Bush’s right wing policies, do you really think being a centrist is what America needs. As republicans keep going right why does the DLC keep chasing after them? I guess because the DLC doesn’t believe in Democratic principles.

Iraqi Child Prisoners and More Abu Ghraib

Iraq's Child Prisoners
Is this what our country is reduced to. Imprisoning and torturing children? On Friday, the deadline for the Pentagon to turn over more photos and videos from Abu Ghraib, which apparently show murder and rape (women and children). A federal judge said the Pentagon had to turn over these videos and pictures, but Pentagon lawyers have refused. Rumsfeld even said they were "sadist and inhumane" and some republican Senators have seen this as well including Lindsay Graham and John McCain. Why do you think these two Senators are pushing for the new regulations for prisoner treatment in the defense bill(That George Bush said he would veto if this was in it.)

This is from a yahoo story:
In an open letter, signed by more than 2,000 veterans and supporters (including 5 flag-rank officers and more than 200 commissioned officers), the veterans urged Congress and the President to "commit -- immediately and publicly -- to support the creation of an independent commission to investigate and report on the detention and interrogation practices of U.S. military and intelligence agencies deployed in the war on terror."

Charles Sheehan-Miles, a 1991 Gulf War veteran and the group's executive director, said, "Once again the administration is fighting to prevent any possible public accountability for its policies, instead choosing to blame it all on the troops. To court-martial privates while high ranking officials get promoted is damaging to the very principle of command responsibility and undermines the U.S. military."

Veterans for Common Sense is co-plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of human rights and civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. The lawsuit has generated thousands of pages of documents in the last year documenting torture, abuse and in some cases murder in U.S. detention centers.

Individuals who have seen the photos and videos, including some members of Congress and journalist Seymour Hersh, have reported they include scenes far worse than anything released from Abu Ghraib thus far, including rape and the videotaped beating of a prisoner. The courts had ordered the Pentagon to release the photos by Friday, July 22, but the Pentagon filed a last minute brief attempting to block their release.

Sheehan-Miles said, "The Pentagon is doing everything it can to prevent the release of these graphic images, because they know that if the U.S. public were to see the true scope of the abuses, the demands for an independent investigation would be too strong to be ignored."

The full text of the letter and list of signers is available at http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org


This is from the Sunday Herald

A Sunday Herald investigation has discovered that coalition forces are holding more than 100 children in jails such as Abu Ghraib. Witnesses claim that the detainees – some as young as 10 – are also being subjected to rape and torture
By Neil Mackay



It was early last October that Kasim Mehaddi Hilas says he witnessed the rape of a boy prisoner aged about 15 in the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “The kid was hurting very bad and they covered all the doors with sheets,” he said in a statement given to investigators probing prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib. “Then, when I heard the screaming I climbed the door … and I saw [the soldier’s name is deleted] who was wearing a military uniform.” Hilas, who was himself threatened with being sexually assaulted in Abu Graib, then describes in horrific detail how the soldier raped “the little kid”.
In another witness statement, passed to the Sunday Herald, former prisoner Thaar Salman Dawod said: “[I saw] two boys naked and they were cuffed together face to face and [a US soldier] was beating them and a group of guards were watching and taking pictures and there was three female soldiers laughing at the prisoners. The prisoners, two of them, were young.”

It’s not certain exactly how many children are being held by coalition forces in Iraq, but a Sunday Herald investigation suggests there are up to 107. Their names are not known, nor is where they are being kept, how long they will be held or what has happened to them during their detention.

Proof of the widespread arrest and detention of children in Iraq by US and UK forces is contained in an internal Unicef report written in June. The report has – surprisingly – not been made public. A key section on child protection, headed “Children in Conflict with the Law or with Coalition Forces”, reads: “In July and August 2003, several meetings were conducted with CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) … and Ministry of Justice to address issues related to juvenile justice and the situation of children detained by the coalition forces … Unicef is working through a variety of channels to try and learn more about conditions for children who are imprisoned or detained, and to ensure that their rights are respected.”

Another section reads: “Information on the number, age, gender and conditions of incarceration is limited. In Basra and Karbala children arrested for alleged activities targeting the occupying forces are reported to be routinely transferred to an internee facility in Um Qasr. The categorisation of these children as ‘internees’ is worrying since it implies indefinite holding without contact with family, expectation of trial or due process.”

The report also states: “A detention centre for children was established in Baghdad, where according to ICRC (International Committee of the Red Cross) a significant number of children were detained. Unicef was informed that the coalition forces were planning to transfer all children in adult facilities to this ‘specialised’ child detention centre. In July 2003, Unicef requested a visit to the centre but access was denied. Poor security in the area of the detention centre has prevented visits by independent observers like the ICRC since last December.

“The perceived unjust detention of Iraqi males, including youths, for suspected activities against the occupying forces has become one of the leading causes for the mounting frustration among Iraqi youths and the potential for radicalisation of this population group.”

Journalists in Germany have also been investigating the detention and abuse of children in Iraq. One reporter, Thomas Reutter of the TV programme Report Mainz, interviewed a US army sergeant called Samuel Provance, who is banned from speaking about his six months stationed in Abu Ghraib but told Reutter of how one 16-year-old Iraqi boy was arrested.

“He was terribly afraid,” Provance said. “He had the skinniest arms I’ve ever seen. He was trembling all over. His wrists were so thin we couldn’t even put handcuffs on him. Right when I saw him for the first time, and took him for interrogation, I felt sorry for him.




“The interrogation specialists poured water over him and put him into a car. Then they drove with him through the night, and at that time it was very, very cold. Then they smeared him with mud and showed him to his father, who was also in custody. They had tried out other interrogation methods on him, but he wasn’t to be brought to talk. The interrogation specialists told me, after the father had seen his son in this state, his heart broke. He wept and promised to tell them everything they wanted to know.”

An Iraqi TV reporter Suhaib Badr-Addin al-Baz saw the Abu Ghraib children’s wing when he was arrested by Americans while making a documentary. He spent 74 days in Abu Ghraib.

“I saw a camp for children there,” he said. “Boys, under the age of puberty. There were certainly hundreds of children in this camp.” Al-Baz said he heard a 12-year-old girl crying. Her brother was also held in the jail. One night guards came into her cell. “She was beaten,” said al-Baz. “I heard her call out, ‘They have undressed me. They have poured water over me.’”

He says he heard her cries and whimpering daily – this, in turn, caused other prisoners to cry as they listened to her. Al-Baz also told of an ill 15-year-old boy who was soaked repeatedly with hoses until he collapsed. Guards then brought in the child’s father with a hood over his head. The boy collapsed again.

Although most of the children are held in US custody, the Sunday Herald has established that some are held by the British Army. British soldiers tend to arrest children in towns like Basra, which are under UK control, then hand the youngsters over to the Americans who interrogate them and detain them.

Between January and May this year the Red Cross registered a total of 107 juveniles in detention during 19 visits to six coalition prisons. The aid organisation’s Rana Sidani said they had no complete information about the ages of those detained, or how they had been treated. The deteriorating security situation has prevented the Red Cross visiting all detention centres.

Amnesty International is outraged by the detention of children. It is aware of “numerous human rights violations against Iraqi juveniles, including detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and killings”. Amnesty has interviewed former detainees who say they’ve seen boys as young as 10 in Abu Ghraib.

The organisation’s leaders have called on the coalition governments to give concrete information on how old the children are, how many are detained, why and where they are being held, and in what circumstances they are being detained. They also want to know if the children have been tortured.

Alistair Hodgett, media director of Amnesty International USA, said the coalition forces needed to be “transparent” about their policy of child detentions, adding: “Secrecy is one thing that rings alarm bells.” Amnesty was given brief access to one jail in Mosul, he said, but has been repeatedly turned away from all others. He pointed out that even countries “which don’t have good records”, such as Libya, gave Amnesty access to prisons. “Denying access just fuels the rumour mill,” he said.

Hodgett added that British and US troops should not be detaining any Iraqis – let alone children – following the recent handover of power. “They should all be held by Iraqi authorities,” he said. “When the coalition handed over Saddam they should have handed over the other 3000 detainees.”

The British Ministry of Defence confirmed UK forces had handed over prisoners to US troops, but a spokes man said he did not know the ages of any detainees given to the Americans.

The MoD also admitted it was currently holding one prisoner aged under 18 at Shaibah prison near Um Qasr. Since the invasion Britain has detained, and later released, 65 under-18s. The MoD claimed the ICRC had access to British jails and detainee lists.

High-placed officials in the Pentagon and Centcom told the Sunday Herald that children as young as 14 were being held by US forces. “We do have juveniles detained,” a source said. “They have been detained as they are deemed to be a threat or because they have acted against the coalition or Iraqis.”

Officially, the Pentagon says it is holding “around 60 juvenile detainees primarily aged 16 and 17”, although when it was pointed out that the Red Cross estimate is substantially higher, a source admitted “numbers may have gone up, we might have detained more kids”.

Officials would not comment about children under the age of 16 being held prisoner. Sources said: ‘‘It’s a real challenge ascertaining their ages. Unlike the UK or the US, they don’t have IDs or birth certificates.” The Sunday Herald has been told, however, that at least five children aged under 16 are being kept at Abu Ghraib and Camp Bucca.

A highly placed source in the Pentagon said: “We have done investigations into accusations of juveniles being abused and raped and can’t find anything that resembles that.”

The Pentagon’s official policy is to segregate juvenile prisoners from the rest of the prison population, and allow young inmates to join family members also being detained. “Our main concern is that they are not abused or harassed by older detainees. We know they need special treatment,” an official said.

Pentagon sources said they were unaware how long child prisoners were kept in jail but said their cases were reviewed every 90 days. The last review was early last month. The sources confirmed the children had been questioned and interrogated when initially detained, but could not say whether this was “an adult-style interrogation”.

The Norwegian government, which is part of the “coalition of the willing”, has already said it will tell the US that the alleged torture of children is intolerable. Odd Jostein Sæter, parliamentary secretary at the Norwegian prime minister’s office, said: “Such assaults are unacceptable. It is against international laws and it is also unacceptable from a moral point of view. This is why we react strongly … We are addressing this in a very severe and direct way and present concrete demands. This is damaging the struggle for democracy and human rights in Iraq.”




In Denmark, which is also in the coalition, Save the Children called on its government to tell the occupying forces to order the immediate release of child detainees. Neals Hurdal, head of the Danish Save the Children, said the y had heard rumours of children in Basra being maltreated in custody since May.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said it was “extremely disturbed” that the coalition was holding children for long periods in jails notorious for torture. HRW also criticised the policy of categorising children as “security detainees”, saying this did not give carte blanche for them to be held indefinitely. HRW said if there was evidence the children had committed crimes then they should be tried in Iraqi courts, otherwise they should be returned to their families.

Unicef is “profoundly disturbed” by reports of children being abused in coalition jails. Alexandra Yuster, Unicef’s senior adviser on child detention, said that under international law children should be detained only as a last resort and only then for the shortest possible time.

They should have access to lawyers and their families, be kept safe, healthy, educated, well-fed and not be subjected to any form of mental or physical punishment, she added. Unicef is now “desperately” trying to get more information on the fate of the children currently detained in coalition jails.

01 August 2004

The South: Failed States

Goddman it!! We live in third world world states.
Toyota, Moving Northward
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Modern American politics is dominated by the doctrine that government is the problem, not the solution. In practice, this doctrine translates into policies that make low taxes on the rich the highest priority, even if lack of revenue undermines basic public services. You don't have to be a liberal to realize that this is wrong-headed. Corporate leaders understand quite well that good public services are also good for business. But the political environment is so polarized these days that top executives are often afraid to speak up against conservative dogma.

Instead, they vote with their feet. Which brings us to the story of Toyota's choice.

There has been fierce competition among states hoping to attract a new Toyota assembly plant. Several Southern states reportedly offered financial incentives worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

But last month Toyota decided to put the new plant, which will produce RAV4 mini-S.U.V.'s, in Ontario. Explaining why it passed up financial incentives to choose a U.S. location, the company cited the quality of Ontario's work force.

What made Toyota so sensitive to labor quality issues? Maybe we should discount remarks from the president of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association, who claimed that the educational level in the Southern United States was so low that trainers for Japanese plants in Alabama had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech equipment.

But there are other reports, some coming from state officials, that confirm his basic point: Japanese auto companies opening plants in the Southern U.S. have been unfavorably surprised by the work force's poor level of training.

There's some bitter irony here for Alabama's governor. Just two years ago voters overwhelmingly rejected his plea for an increase in the state's rock-bottom taxes on the affluent, so that he could afford to improve the state's low-quality education system. Opponents of the tax hike convinced voters that it would cost the state jobs.

But education is only one reason Toyota chose Ontario. Canada's other big selling point is its national health insurance system, which saves auto manufacturers large sums in benefit payments compared with their costs in the United States.

You might be tempted to say that Canadian taxpayers are, in effect, subsidizing Toyota's move by paying for health coverage. But that's not right, even aside from the fact that Canada's health care system has far lower costs per person than the American system, with its huge administrative expenses. In fact, U.S. taxpayers, not Canadians, will be hurt by the northward movement of auto jobs.

To see why, bear in mind that in the long run decisions like Toyota's probably won't affect the overall number of jobs in either the United States or Canada. But the result of international competition will be to give Canada more jobs in industries like autos, which pay health benefits to their U.S. workers, and fewer jobs in industries that don't provide those benefits. In the U.S. the effect will be just the reverse: fewer jobs with benefits, more jobs without.

So what's the impact on taxpayers? In Canada, there's no impact at all: since all Canadians get government-provided health insurance in any case, the additional auto jobs won't increase government spending.

But U.S. taxpayers will suffer, because the general public ends up picking up much of the cost of health care for workers who don't get insurance through their jobs. Some uninsured workers and their families end up on Medicaid. Others end up depending on emergency rooms, which are heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Funny, isn't it? Pundits tell us that the welfare state is doomed by globalization, that programs like national health insurance have become unsustainable. But Canada's universal health insurance system is handling international competition just fine. It's our own system, which penalizes companies that treat their workers well, that's in trouble.

I'm sure that some readers will respond to everything I've just said by asking why, if the Canadians are so smart, they aren't richer. But I'll have to leave the issue of America's comparative economic performance for another day.

For now, let me just point out that treating people decently is sometimes a competitive advantage. In America, basic health insurance is a privilege; in Canada, it's a right. And in the auto industry, at least, the good jobs are heading north.

Bush's Degrading Nicknames

Here is a quote from Tim Noah's article on slate.
Of the many trials facing Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, Jr., perhaps none is as daunting as the ritual humiliation of receiving a nickname from President Bush. The president's penchant for foisting belittling monikers on people is one of his least attractive personal traits. It may be a lifelong habit, but now that he's president, it sends a very particular message: "I will call you [Turd Blossom, Tangent Man, Lima Green Bean, whatever] and you will call me Mr. President." Not since Lyndon Johnson have we had a president who so relished making people feel small. And we're all supposed to pretend that it's endearing!

Bush is a petty little man. It's like the sons of extremely wealthy and successful fathers who turn out to be completely worthless. These sons grow up being arrogant and with a sense of entitlement, while having an inferiority complex because they never did anything themselves. Daddy fixed every screw up or set up every deal that went right. So now we get a little bully like Bush, who melted during the debates because people didn't just roll over in front of him. Now we hear rumors of Bush roaming around the White House quoting Scripture than yelling at people in a paranoid state because everyone is out to get his administration. Hopefully, his doctors will up his zoloft dosage. Imagine if Rove has to go. Does Cheney get to take over if Bush has a nervous breakdown?

Oh God, I Guess I Have to Talk about The Convention

Whew, the convention is over. Thank God. Desi, Ann, Randa and others were able to hold the coalition together. Congratulations. They were more than patient with me. I was definitely the problem child of the Coalition. At least they know I'm a man of word though. Campaigns and debates are for fighting for ideas, but once you make a promise you have to stick with it. Even though the election is over, my views haven't changed.
On other notes- It is an abomination to me that the Admiral, David Robinson is not on the EC. At times like this, the level headed and rational Mr Robinson is not officially in the neighborhood. (Sorry for all the name jokes) David always has his act together, attends almost everyone's meetings, and can debate ideas without it getting personal. A true injustice compared to all the work he does for this party. Second, I got to speak to Dale Gill for the first time. No one can ever say he isn't passionate and informed. He'd like to continue as parliamentarian or secretary. When thinking about it, I sure would miss Dale if he wasn't parliamentarian. EC meetings just wouldn't be the same. One thing's for certain, David Robinson and Dale should fill these two positions. Either would be competent for both jobs.
Third, Laura Davis. Don't ever put those damn stickers on the cahirs! U of M was going to charge the democratic party or your campaign to peel them off. Which I must say wasn't easy, plus they were on like 25 chairs!?!. Jim Vandiver, his friend, Brad Watkins, myself, and Dale stayed and peeled off your stickers.
Finally, I may be setting up the board for people to guess what day Harold Ford Jr. drops out of the Senate race. I'm tentatively looking at Christmas time. I still have to pick the exact day. Note, I just looked at the calender. December 23rd, the Friday before Christmas. Story gets buried in main stream media.

Patriotism Lite

Almost everything about the Iraq War makes me sick. War-profiteering, lying to the American public, destabilizing the region, patriotism-lite, breaking our military, not providing help to veterans, and the list goes on and on. It is interesting that when Rumsfeld took over as Secretary of Defense he commissioned a study about why empires decline. Apparently, he didn't read or it was a bad study because we did exactly what empires at their zenith have done. Overestimated their own strength while underestimating an opponent. Taking part in foolish military expeditions while ignoring problems at home and our competitors were on the rise.

Analysis: Frustrated with 'patriotism lite'
Thom Shanker, New York Times
July 24, 2005

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The Bush administration's rallying call that America is a nation at war is increasingly ringing hollow to men and women in uniform, who argue in frustration that America is not a nation at war but a nation with only its military at war.
From bases in Iraq and across the United States, officers and enlisted personnel quietly raise a question for political leaders: If America is truly on a war footing, why is so little sacrifice asked of the nation at large?
There is no serious talk of a draft to share the burden of fighting across the broad citizenry and neither Republicans nor Democrats are pressing for a tax increase to force Americans to cover the $5 billion a month in costs from Iraq, Afghanistan and counter-terrorism missions.
There are not concerted efforts like the savings-bond drives or gasoline rationing that helped to unite the country behind its fighting forces in wars past.
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice except us," said one officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq.
Members of the military who discussed their sense of frustration did so only when promised anonymity, as comments viewed as critical of the civilian leadership could end their careers. The sentiments were expressed in more than two dozen interviews and casual conversations with enlisted personnel, noncommissioned officers, midlevel officers, and general or flag officers in Iraq and in the United States.
Charles Moskos, a professor emeritus at Northwestern University specializing in military sociology, said: "My terminology for it is 'patriotism lite,' and that's what we're experiencing now in both political parties. The political leaders are afraid to ask the public for any real sacrifice, which doesn't speak too highly of the citizenry."
While officers and enlisted personnel say they enjoy symbolic signs of support and the high ratings the military now enjoys in public opinion polls, "that's just not enough," said a one-star officer who served in Iraq. "There has to be more," he added, saying that the absence of a call for broader national sacrifice in a time of war has become a near constant topic of discussion among officers and enlisted personnel.
"For most Americans," said an officer with a year's experience in Iraq, "their role in the war on terror is limited to the slight inconvenience of arriving at the airport a few hours early."
Maj. Gen. Robert Scales Jr., who served as commandant of the Army War College and is now retired, said: "Despite the enormous impact of September 11, it hasn't really translated into a national movement towards fighting the war on terrorism. It's almost as if the politicians want to be able to declare war and, at the same time, maintain a sense of normalcy."
Scales said he had heard a heavy stream of concerns from current officers that "the military is increasingly isolated from the rest of the country."
"People associate being an officer with the priesthood," he added. "You know, there is an enormous amount of respect, but nobody wants to sign up for celibacy."
Private organizations like the Navy League of the United States that support the individual armed services have identified the tension and are using this theme to urge greater contributions from members now in the civilian world.
"We have recognized that and we have tried to sound the alarm," said Rear Adm. Stephen Pietropaoli, retired, the executive director of the Navy League.
"As an organization that is committed to supporting them by ensuring they have the weapons and tools and systems to fight and win, and also at the grass-roots level by providing assistance to families," Pietropaoli said, "we are aware that the burden has fallen almost solely on the shoulders of the uniformed military and security services and their families. We have used that in our calls to action by our members. We have said, 'We are at war. What have you done lately?' "
"Nobody in America is asked to sacrifice except us."
-- An officer just back from a yearlong tour in Iraq

Jeffrey Sachs tries to spread a little wisdom

VIEW: Make politics, not war, in Iraq —Jeffrey Sachs
From the Daily Times
The American military can protect the US from conventional military attack, and it can keep the high seas open, ensuring the flow of oil and other vital commodities. But it can’t protect the US from politics. For that, Americans need to be smarter, investing in peaceful development

The United States is once again learning the limits of military power. In Iraq, America has unrivaled control of the air, but can’t hold the ground. Its mere presence incites violence.

While President George W Bush believes that he has protected Americans by “taking the war to the enemy,” more than 1,700 Americans have died in the Iraq war, which also has provoked terrorist attacks on US allies. The horrific London bombings were probably inspired by Britain’s co-leadership of the war.

The Bush administration’s mistake, of course, is to neglect politics in its war calculations, or to follow blindly the dictum that war is politics by other means. In fact, most war is a failure of politics, a failure of political imagination. Given their self-righteousness and lack of historical and cultural awareness, Bush and his advisors believed that invading Iraq would be easy, that Saddam Hussein’s military would crumble, and that the US would be welcomed as a liberator. They failed to comprehend that Iraq has long been an occupied and externally manipulated country.

As a result, Iraqis understandably regard the American-led occupation as just another episode of outside exploitation. It is widely accepted that oil, not terror, was the original motivation of the war — a war planned by Mr Bush’s senior advisors during the 1990s, and made possible by their accession to power in 2001.

Through the 1990s, US Vice President Dick Cheney and others made clear that Saddam’s reign threatened America’s oil security by forcing over-reliance on Saudi Arabia. Iraq’s vast reserves, went the argument, could not be developed safely until Saddam was deposed. The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the US provided the green light, not the underlying motivation.

The Iraqis sense all of this. Bush’s refusal to set a deadline for withdrawing troops is not taken as a sign of resolve, but as a statement of America’s intent to remain in Iraq, establish a puppet regime, control the country’s oil and set up permanent military bases.

That won’t work. There are simply too many real political forces on the ground in Iraq for America to manage, and these forces are increasingly demanding a timetable for US withdrawal, as are legions of Iraqis in the course of public protests and mosque worships. Every time the US reiterates its refusal to set a deadline for withdrawal, it simply stokes political opposition, not to mention the insurgency. There are too many Iraqis ready to fight and die to oppose the American presence. Only politics, not arms, can calm the scene.

Vietnam is a true precedent here. Vietnamese deaths and casualties outnumbered American deaths and casualties by perhaps 20 to one, but the US still could not subdue the nationalist adversary that they faced. The US could bomb Vietnam’s cities to rubble, as it can Iraq’s cities, but this solves nothing, claims vast numbers of innocent lives, and confirms the view of Americans as occupiers.

All of this has an economic angle as well. American foreign policy doctrine states that US national security rests on three pillars: defence, diplomacy, and development. Economic aid for poor nations is crucial, because poverty provides the tinder for violence, conflict, and even terrorism. Yet diplomacy and development take a distant second and third place behind defence — or more accurately, military — approaches in US foreign policy spending.

The US will devote approximately $500 billion, or five percent of GNP, to military spending this year — half of the world’s total. In other words, the US spends as much on arms as the rest of the world combined.

By contrast, the US spends just $18 billion, roughly 0.16 percent of GNP, on development aid. In Europe, by contrast, military spending is roughly two percent of GNP, while development aid is around 0.4 percent of GNP and on a rising path to reach 0.7 percent of GNP by 2015.

If the US would pursue politics rather than war, it would understand that more development spending and a commercial approach to Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, rather than the current military approach, would best serve American interests. Bombing Libya did not bring Muammar Qadaffi “in from the cold”. Peaceful diplomacy did the job, showing Qadaffi that reopening diplomatic relations with the West and abandoning Libya’s nuclear ambitions would be advantageous for its own future and that of the country.

The same approach would have been far less expensive and more promising vis-à-vis Saddam Hussein. Vast sums — and millions of lives — would have been saved if that approach had been tried with Ho Chi Minh in the 1950s.

No one doubts that intelligence operations and police actions are needed to fight terrorists. But the war in Iraq and enormous military expenditures are quite another matter. The American military can protect the US from conventional military attack, and it can keep the high seas open, ensuring the flow of oil and other vital commodities. But it can’t protect the US from politics. For that, Americans need to be smarter, investing in peaceful development rather than military bases in long-abused lands.

The US should leave Iraq quickly. After that, it can and should use its political and economic weight to help manage a complex and difficult situation that is significantly, though not exclusively, of its own making. America’s sway in Iraq will be limited, but leaving now would actually make it more effective than it is now, and at much less cost in terms of money and American, allied, and Iraqi lives. —DT-PS

Jeffrey Sachs is Professor of Economics and Director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University

Harold Ford Jr-Disrepectful sissy II

Once again, I have gone to democratic political event with dozens of party activists and Harold Ford was not there. Rosiland Kurita got the stage to herself again and was very friendly with Sidney Chism to top it off. I'm sure "Sidney doesn't have a horse in this race" either.(I've heard that phrase several times over the past few days.) At least Kurita gave the nice speech. She laid wood on Ford last time. I must say Kurita has guts. Coming to the heart of Ford's support and giving a speech in front of his faction at the convention. Oh well, I guess the Ford faction had bigger issues on their plate. But this is not helping Ford with his image of looking weak. Kurita is barely classified as a democrat, but at least she is showing up. It would be great for Ford to withdrawal from the race and allow another true blue Democratic fighter to enter. That's my dream.

Israel taking more Palestinian Land

Sharon is talking about taking more Palestinian Land. Why is Israel ethnic cleansing ok, but Serbian or Janjuweeds in Sudan not? I'm far more sympathetic to Palestinians than Israels. I am actually shocked more Palestinians aren't attacking Israel. Terror bombings are not acceptable but neither is tank assaults, helicopter or plane attacks in Palestinian cities. Exactly how many Hamas leaders are their for Israel to bomb. Obviously, that tactic ain't working because Hamas keeps getting new ones.I don't believe there will be a solution to the conflict. Many Palestinians and Israelis don't believe so either. Maybe the Israelis should have just took part of Uganda when it was offered.

During a visit to the West Bank settlement of Ariel yesterday, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said that in the future an expanded Ariel would be an integral part of Israel.

"I reiterate and clarify that this bloc is one of the most important. It will forever be part of the State of Israel. There is no other thought and no other direction of thinking.

"I came here today to see how the city can be expanded and the bloc strengthened, as I do and shall do in the other blocs. This bloc will forever be an inseparable part of the State of Israel, territorially contiguous with the State of Israel like the other blocs," he said. . .

During the meeting with Nachman and the council members, Sharon criticized Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, also a member of his Likud Party, without mentioning him by name.

"There is a Knesset member in our party who constantly, in a hysterical and shrieking tone of voice, announces the next stage of the disengagement, even though he knows it's a lie. I cannot issue denials all day long. I hear MKs saying that I'm going to divide Jerusalem, but I don't intend even to discuss Jerusalem. The incitement keeps recurring, and even those who incite know it's a lie and that there won't be a second or additional disengagement, and that Jerusalem will not be divided." '

Cigarettes, Taxes and Thin French Women

July 24, 2005
Cigarettes, Taxes and Thin French Women
By DANIEL GROSS
Strange as it may sound at first, many economists and health care experts say they believe that the two trends may be related. Experts blame factors ranging from urban sprawl to junk-food-laden diets for the increase in the number of Americans who are obese - defined as having a body mass index of over 30.

But smoking, or the decline of smoking, may also play a role. Nicotine is a stimulant, which means that smokers burn calories faster. And it's an appetite suppressant, which means that smokers eat less. Consider "French Women Don't Get Fat," the best selling book. Some critics said that the real reason chic Parisian women stayed trim while gorging themselves on croissants was that they smoked more than their American counterparts.
I don't know about this theory. French women do smoke and are thin (super-sexy accents too), but what about all the fat americans that smoke too. The french have better food (just plain healthier) and have a higher quality of life(lower stress, vacation, active lifestyle, more sex) than americans. I'd say that's more to do with being thin.

Brooks is killing trees for no good reason

Damn it David Brooks. Your article sucks. Of all the crap to write about you choose this:Pain, Agony, Despair: Flying With Children
Come on Dude. If NYT wanted their star conservative commentator to be performing at this level, they could have gotten Tucker Carlson or Tony Blankely.

Oh no, Gonzales can't join SCOTUS because of Plame

This is from Frank Rich's NYT article. Rich is the greatest commentator of our generation. Only Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe comes in a near second.
As White House counsel, he was the one first notified that the Justice Department, at the request of the C.I.A., had opened an investigation into the outing of Joseph Wilson's wife. That notification came at 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 29, 2003, but it took Mr. Gonzales 12 more hours to inform the White House staff that it must "preserve all materials" relevant to the investigation. This 12-hour delay, he has said, was sanctioned by the Justice Department, but since the department was then run by John Ashcroft, a Bush loyalist who refused to recuse himself from the Plame case, inquiring Senate Democrats would examine this 12-hour delay as closely as an 18½-minute tape gap. "Every good prosecutor knows that any delay could give a culprit time to destroy the evidence," said Senator Charles Schumer, correctly, back when the missing 12 hours was first revealed almost two years ago. A new Gonzales confirmation process now would have quickly devolved into a neo-Watergate hearing. Mr. Gonzales was in the thick of the Plame investigation, all told, for 16 months.
How far does the rabbit hole go? So far, it's Rove, Libby, Powell, Cheney, Hughes, Hadley, Fleischer, McClellan, and Matlin. Could the last senior Bush Administration official please turn out the lights before you go to jail.
Interesting fact, During the height of Clinton's impeachment his job approval rating was 58%. Beginning impeachment at 42% approval rating means your ass is thrown out of office.

Where's Crackers the Corporate Crime Fighting Chicken When We Need Him?

This is what gets me. The chinese are not destroying american manufacturing. It's american corporations that are profitable, but want to become marginally more profitable, moving factories to China. I believe in free trade. I also believe American companies should show some loyalty to America. So if you don't want to employ Americans then pay your goddamn taxes so the government can reinvest in the American workforce. Oh yeah, I forgot corporations only have responsibility to their share holders. Funny, individuals who follow thinking as narrow as this would be considered socio-paths, and locked up if they broke the law. But in our American system, corporations have the same rights as individuals. To bad we can't lock up a corporation when it breaks the law. If we could, imagine Halliburton, Tyco, Enron, and all the others in the Arkam Asylum of corporate justice. Hell, we would need Cracker, Batman or Elliot Spitzer to hunt them down.

July 23, 2005
Kimberly-Clark Announces Plans to Cut 6,000 Jobs and Close 20 Factories
By ERIC O'KEEFE
DALLAS, July 22 - Kimberly-Clark said on Friday that it would cut 6,000 jobs and close or sell 20 manufacturing plants by the end of 2008 as part of a broad-based strategy to reduce costs.

The cutbacks, which amount to about 10 percent of the company's global work force and 17 percent of its plants, were part of Kimberly-Clark's announcement of its second-quarter earnings, which fell 7.2 percent.

The company, which is based in Dallas and makes Kleenex tissues, Viva paper towels, Huggies diapers and Scott products, said net income was $421.8 million, or 88 cents a share, compared with $454.3 million, or 90 cents, in the period a year earlier. Excluding a one-time charge of 7 cents a share to bring back $660 million in foreign profits, the company earned 95 cents a share, a penny better than analysts expected.

Sales increased 8.1 percent, to $3.99 billion from $3.69 billion, with consumer tissue products and personal care products registering gains of 12.9 percent and 7.4 percent.

The introduction of Kleenex antiviral facial tissue contributed to an almost 16 percent increase in North American tissue product sales. In Europe, sales increased 1 percent. In developing and emerging markets, personal care sales climbed 18 percent, with robust growth in Latin America.

Kimberly-Clark's chairman and chief executive, Thomas J. Falk, told analysts in a conference call that the company's biggest challenge so far this year has been responding to $200 million in unanticipated cost increases related to higher oil prices.

Mr. Falk noted that the company was able to offset these pressures through currency benefits, price increases, a slightly lower tax rate and increased sales volume.

The job cuts and plant closings will result in after-tax charges of $625 million to $775 million beginning in the third quarter and continuing through 2008. In addition to the closing of the 20 plants, 4 factories will be streamlined and 7 others will be expanded. The company expects the announced reductions and other cutbacks to generate $300 million to $350 million in annual savings beginning in 2009. Executives declined to identify the plants that would be closed.

A primary objective of these savings will be to accelerate investment in developing and emerging markets. In particular, Mr. Falk singled out Brazil, Russia, India, China, Indonesia and Turkey. "We're going to move even faster to capitalize on the tremendous opportunities in these markets," he said. He added that Kimberly-Clark's sales in those countries were up about 30 percent in the second quarter.

Mr. Falk also said that earnings would be 94 to 96 cents a share in the third quarter. The company's earnings guidance was narrowed to $3.77 to $3.83 for the year, which is at the top end of the previous outlook of $3.70 to $3.85 a share. That would compare with earnings of $3.55 a share in 2004.

Shares of Kimberly-Clark rose $1.53, to $64.38.