Typical Republican Hypocrisy

“CANTON, Ohio (AP) -- California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to stop two Ohio brothers from making and selling bobblehead dolls in his likeness.

A thousand of the Schwarzenegger dolls were produced in part for charity about a month ago by Ohio Discount Merchandise run by Todd and Toby Bosley. They feature the governor in a suit with an ammo belt and machine gun.

"He wants the doll terminated," said Todd Bosley, the company's president.

The governor's law firm, Lavely & Singer, sent Bosley a letter demanding he immediately stop making and selling the dolls, deliver any remaining dolls to their offices and make a substantial payment to Schwarzenegger.

Schwarzenegger has authorized a lawsuit if the conditions aren't met, the letter said. A message for attorney Martin Singer was not returned Friday.

Cancer charity gets $5 a doll
While Schwarzenegger's lawyers insist the former film star owns his name, likeness and all publicity rights, the bobblehead brothers contend he is a public political figure and therefore can no longer control his image.

The brothers say they plan to fight for the doll.

"This isn't something we did for a profit," Toby Bosley said.

The Bosleys' business gets about $1.50 per doll, while a fund that provides grants for cancer research gets $5 per the doll. The sale price is $19.95 each.

Schwarzenegger became aware of the doll when his wife, Maria Shriver, visited a Washington gift shop, according to the brothers. She was offended and asked the shopkeeper to remove it from the shelves.

The brothers market other dolls, too. Their best seller is model Anna Nicole Smith, followed by Jesus.”

“MIDDLE EAST GETS A TASTE OF ITS OWN MEDICINE

Government officials in Jordan say they thwarted an Al-Qaeda plan to set off a chemical bomb and attack the U.S. Embassy and other targets there. Had they been successful, officials say as many as 20,000 people would have died. The suspects, in a confession aired on Jordanian television, said their aim was to kill 80,000 people. They also said they were taking orders from Al-Qaeda. Maybe now the Arab world will confront their problem of Islamic terrorism ... but probably not. It's the United States' fault, you know.

The brutal fact of the matter is that it is basically up to the United States and Great Britain, with the help of Italy, Australia and a too-small cadre of allies, to fight and to destroy the threat of Islamic terrorism. Euro-weenie countries like France and Germany, with their large Arab populations, don't have the courage to play a role. Once again they're relying on the United States to keep them safe, all the while seeking cover from their Muslim inhabitants by criticizing our every move.

Every American, especially those who think our invasion of Iraq is wrong, should take a few minutes today to consider the implications of a chemical terrorist attack in America ... one like the attack planned in Jordan. What happens to our economy when 100,000 people are killed in Manhattan? Which presidential candidate is most feared by the Arab world? Important questions.

The fact of the matter is something like that could very easily happen here. That's why the war on terror is so important and why terrorists must be defeated. The Poodle wants to end the war on terror and treat it like a law enforcement problem. Which would you rather have? A president willing to track these people down and kill them, or a president willing to track them down and serve them with a subpoena?

There's no way to protect against an attack like this...except to take pre-emptive action and eliminate the terrorist cells.”

“

[...]
When Janet Reno's Justice Department protested efforts in the 1990s to make it easier for Silicon Valley to export encryption technology overseas, then-Senator Ashcroft seemed unconcerned with her contention that terrorists were turning to Internet encryption to communicate. One example she, FBI head Louis Freeh and others in law enforcement cited: Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, used encryption to hide details of his plot to blow up 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. But Ashcroft, in a 1997 piece in USIA Electronic Journal, wrote that while coded messages and maps might be used to facilitate crimes, the Administration's "police state policy on encryption" was at odds with the Bill of Rights — an argument that foes of the Patriot Act might be surprised to hear from him now. President Clinton, he said, "is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry."
[...]”

“Despite the recommendations of the Clinton Justice Department, then-Senator John Ashcroft opposed controls on electronic encryption in 1997

[...]
When Janet Reno's Justice Department protested efforts in the 1990s to make it easier for Silicon Valley to export encryption technology overseas, then-Senator Ashcroft seemed unconcerned with her contention that terrorists were turning to Internet encryption to communicate. One example she, FBI head Louis Freeh and others in law enforcement cited: Ramzi Yousef, mastermind of the 1993 WTC bombing, used encryption to hide details of his plot to blow up 11 U.S. airliners over the Pacific. But Ashcroft, in a 1997 piece in USIA Electronic Journal, wrote that while coded messages and maps might be used to facilitate crimes, the Administration's "police state policy on encryption" was at odds with the Bill of Rights — an argument that foes of the Patriot Act might be surprised to hear from him now. President Clinton, he said, "is attempting to foist his rigid policy on the exceptionally fluid and fast-paced computer industry."
[...]”

“So yesterday President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney met with the 9/11 Commission. This meeting was held in the Oval Office and no recording was made of what took place. The president answered every question, and was not stopped at any point by the White House counsel. All sides (so far) are praising the session and commission members have said the president was candid and forthcoming. The questions and the answers that have leaked have been pretty predictable...mostly about the August 6th PDB memo and the administration's response to the attacks. If the media, Democrats in Congress and The Poodle thought they were going to get anything out of this to nail Bush on, they're sorely mistaken. Better luck next time, though. The media is most certainly disappointed as well.

There was one pretty unbelievable development in all this. The 9/11 Commission pressed for weeks and weeks to meet with the president and the vice-president. It absolutely had to happen, we were told, for them to complete their report. It was a very important priority. So with that as a backdrop, once they get their meeting in the Oval Office with the president, what do two of the Democrats on the commission do? They leave early! Vice chairman Lee Hamilton left the White House 70 minutes early, saying that he had a meeting with the Canadian Prime Minister. Bob Kerrey also left in the middle of the questioning, because he had a previous commitment to meet with Senator Pete Domenici on Capitol Hill. Why did they leave early? They left early because they weren't drawing any blood. They left early because the president was performing above all expectations. They left early because their agenda was not to gather information, but to embarrass the president. So .. .if your agenda isn't being met, leave!

Unbelievable. These two men were appointed to a committee to investigate the historic 9/11 attacks on America, and they can't even clear their schedules to meet with the president of the United States.”

“"This meeting was held in the Oval Office and no recording was made of what took place."

Aaaaaannnnnddddddd, he answered all the questions?

Sez who?”

“There was a transcript smuggled out and posted at crisispapers.org . I'm pretty sure it will be scrubbed soon, so I'll post it here.


Transcript of Bush/Cheney Testimony Before
the 9/11 Commission

By Bernard Weiner, Co-Editor,
The Crisis Papers


Chairman Kean: The Commission will come to order. Welcome, Mr. President and Mr. Vice President. Although, per our agreement, you are not being placed under oath, we expect that your testimony will consist only of the truth. The Commission and the American people deserve no less, and we trust you are in full agreement with this expectation.

Cheney: Yes, of course.

Bush: Sure, OK.

Kean: I have a few preliminary questions. First, Mr. President, please tell us what pre-9/11 warnings you were receiving in the Summer of 2001 from various intelligence agencies and from other nations' leaders about a possible coming Al Qaida attack.

Bush: It was all historical. You know, old stuff, very general, about Osama's desire to hurt the United States. They hate us, you know, hate our freedoms. Nothing specific.

Kean: Did you receive warnings about the possibility of airplanes being hijacked and used as weapons?

Bush: Nobody would have ever thought of that. For example, there was the Genoa summit where--

Cheney: To complete that thought. There had been some information in the past, historical reports, about how Al Qaida might want to hijack an airplane and exchange the hostages for the release of the blind Muslim leader. But, of course, nothing about planes used as weapons.

Kean: But the President just mentioned the Genoa Summit meeting of world leaders, where there was intelligence that terrorists might want to fly a plane into the hotel where the heads of state were staying. I presume that is why President Bush chose to stay on a naval vessel offshore. Is that what you were referring to, Mr. President?

Cheney: I think the President was referring to the fact that the world leaders, assembled for an economic summit, were also going to be talking about how to combat terrorism.

Kean: Excuse me, Mr. Vice President, but I was addressing that question to the President.

Bush: The Vice President has explained my position.

Kean: Very well. Let's move on to what, on the surface, appears to be inexplicable behavior at the Florida schoolhouse on the morning of 9/11. Mr. President, you were in the schoolroom listening to children read, your Chief of Staff Andrew Card walked in and told you that the second tower had been struck by another jet; America clearly was under attack from some nation or band of terrorists, yet you did not quickly leave, the Secret Service did not whisk you away to safety, your staff did not request that you depart to assume command as Commander in Chief. In short, your behavior was so casual as to leave one puzzled. Could you explain, please?

Bush: It was a very emotional, confusing time, so I'm not sure I can remember all the details of that morning. As to why I continued to sit there, I knew that the Vice President was on top of things in Washington and--

Cheney: We conferred on the phone, coordinating the approach the government should be taking. I took the President's commands and implemented them while he made his way back to the capital.

CHAOS & CONFUSION

Kean: Let's ignore for a moment the whole phone-communication discussion -- that is, how and when you two conferred when the President was sitting in the classroom for 20+ minutes; the key question is why he didn't exit the classroom immediately, both for safety's sake in case terrorists were out to get him as well, and in terms of assuming command and control of the government's response. How can that be explained?

Cheney: If I may, Mr. Chairman. It was a chaotic time that morning. While the government responses were being prepared, and information gathered -- by Dick Clarke, myself, and so on -- it was all so confusing, there was no precedent for how to behave, etc.

Bush: Very confusing. Very historical.

Kean: Very well. One more question from me and then we'll open it up to questions from the Commissioners. Would you explain, please, Mr. President, why during the summer of 2001, when the threat reports were spiking, you left Washington, D.C., for a month's vacation in Texas, and therefore did not confer directly with CIA Director Tenet about those increasing reports; and why Attorney General Ashcroft, having received an FBI "threat assessment," stopped flying on commercial aircraft? The implication certainly is that your Administration had received reliable reports that aircraft might be hijacked and used as weapons aimed at buildings in Washington and New York City. Certainly nobody would fault you for protecting yourselves and the ongoing governmental institutions, but what the victims' families have requested me to ask you is this: If you took steps to protect yourselves from harm, why, when you realized a massive attack was in the works, why did you do little or nothing to help protect ordinary American citizens on commercial aircraft and in those skyscrapers and government buildings?

Bush: It was all historical information. No specifics. If we'd had specific information, we would have moved earth and the...earth and the...you know what I mean, to stop those Islam fanatics.

Cheney: None of the warnings ever provided enough to act on. Non-actionable intelligence. It was all vague. And historical.

WHY NO ACTION TAKEN?

Kean: Commissioner Ben Veniste?

Ben Veniste: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. President, let me read you key descriptions of the warnings in the Presidential Daily Briefing of 6 August 2001, and then you tell me whether you feel those words should have provoked some actionable moves on your part to protect the American people.

Bush: Nothing specific, not enough to go on. I would have moved heaven and...heaven and...you know what I mean, to protect the American people.

Ben Veniste: Yes. Let's look at that intelligence summary: The title of that PDB memo is "Bin Laden Determined To Attack In the United States" -- not, as Ari Fleischer told the press originally, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack the United States." In the PDB is a reference to the fact that al Qaeda was currently maintaining a "support structure" in the United States. And it cited information obtained in May 2001 suggesting "that a group of bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives." It specifically refers to "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," and mentions that terrorist suspects were observed doing "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." Do those quotes refresh your recollection about the dire warnings that something extraordinary was about to happen?

Bush: There were no flight numbers, no date, all very vague. Nobody could have imagined that planes--

Cheney: I think we've answered your question, Mr. Ben Veniste. Let us move on to another topic.

Ben Veniste: I don't recall my asking you a question, sir. Now, Mr. President, following up on your answer, let me ask you this: Does it seem reasonable that a secretive terrorist organization would provide you with the actual flight numbers and date for their attack? The key question remains: With all the fairly specific warnings that you were made privy to, why you did not take actions that perhaps would have helped protect American citizens, as you swore to do when you took your oath of office as President?

Cheney: With all due respect, Mr. Ben Veniste, we have made time in our busy schedules to be here with you today, but going over and over the same point seems counter-productive. Might we move on, please?

Ben Veniste: May I remind the witness once again that the rules of this hearing are set by the Commission, not by the Vice President of the United States. Please be so good as to answer the question, Mr. President.

Bush: It's all so complicated. You wouldn't believe the amount of paper work and issues a President has to deal with. That was more than three years ago, and I can't remember all the details. The Vice President has a better handle on those facts, and I would prefer that he speak on my behalf.

Kean: The witness will answer the question posed to him.

Cheney: This is not a court of law, Mr. Chairman. We appear here voluntarily to assist the Commission in its duties of trying to assess where our intelligence and law-enforcement agencies might have gone wrong, might have missed connecting the dots and so on. The FBI and the CIA were deficient--

Kean: The witness will answer the question posed to him. Mr. President, please proceed.

Cheney: There are important questions of separation of powers here, Mr. Chairman. The Executive cannot be compelled by the Legislative branch to answer questions that might compromise national security and the right of the President to assert Executive Privilege.

Kean: Mr. Vice President, please listen to me carefully. The question was not posed to you, but to the President. If you persist in interrupting, you will be asked to leave the room, and we will call you separately to testify later. Finally, this is not a legislative body; the President and Congress have established this independent Commission. You both have agreed to tell us the truth of what you know. Now, Mr. President, the Commissioners are waiting to hear your response to the question posed by Commissioner Ben Veniste.

Cheney: Mr. Chairman, please listen to me equally as carefully. The President and I didn't agree to come here today to be badgered by the Commission, but rather to try to assist you in putting together an understanding of how and why our intelligence services might have fallen down on the job. If you persist in going over old grounds and into national security matters that are outside your purview, we will have no other recourse but to assume you are acting in bad faith and we will feel compelled to leave and return to our duties.

Vice Chairman Hamilton: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to the Vice President. First, there is nothing "outside the purview" of this Commission's mandate, including classified matters. Second, Mr. Vice President, we agreed to this odd arrangement of having the two of you appear together as a courtesy to you. You both are here, and we expect courtesy and cooperation from you. If you do not like the questions posed to you, you are free to record your objections on the record, but you have agreed to come here and tell the truth, which implies answering the questions posed. Should you choose not to cooperate and to leave the hearings after only about 15 minutes or so, the American people will have to make up their own minds as to why you might have done that.

Cheney: If you persist in turning this into an adversarial hearing, then we would like the White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales, to be present.

MR. BUSH REPLIES

Kean: Mr. Vice President, this is not an adversarial hearing. We are an informational body, trying to amass answers that will aid us in coming up with recommendations to the Congress and the Executive Branch to help prevent future 9/11 attacks. In order to do that job, we need to ask exploratory questions that help us fill in the blanks, that give us a fuller picture of what transpired in the weeks and months before 9/11. No disrespect is intended. In that light, The President once again is requested to answer the question posed. We will afford you, Mr. Vice President, the full opportunity to answer following the President's response.

Cheney: I would appreciate the courtesy of answering first, if you don't mind. This is all very complicated information -- and perhaps I can set the context that will aid you in understanding the President's response.

Kean: Mr. Vice President, we appreciate your desire to set the context for us -- and for the President. But, if memory serves, I believe Commissioner Ben Veniste's question was asked of the President. Commissioner, would you object if the Vice President answered the question first?

Ben Veniste: I would be most delighted to hear the Vice President's remarks -- following the President's response to my question.

[The President and the Vice President confer.]

Bush: Let me say again that the intelligence information that was coming into the White House--

Cheney: That was coming into the FBI and CIA--

Vice Chairman Hamilton: Mr. Cheney, I warn you again not to int--

Kean: Please proceed, Mr. President, without further interruptions, please.

Bush: Yes, I was trying to say that the intelligence that we got -- the intelligence we got from the FBI and CIA -- was all very vague, very non-specific. We knew Al Qaida didn't like the U.S., hated us for our freedoms, you know, so the intelligence reporting that he wanted to attack us was nothing new. And there was nothing specific about when or where such an attack might take place, so there was nothing I could have done, or should have done, when there were no specific details.

Ben Veniste: So, if I understand you correctly, Mr. President, you're saying that if you had received exact details, you would have, in your words -- sort of -- moved heaven and earth to protect and defend American citizens and interests.

Bush: Yes, that's it. Exactly. I would have moved...I would have done just like you said.

Ben Veniste: So in the PDB of 6 August 2001, when it refers to suspicious activities of terror suspects in several areas of the country, and in hijackings, and their possible interest in attacks in those locations, you didn't find that to be actionable intelligence?

Bush: Right. No specifics. What could I have done? Made an announcement based on vague threat information and panicked millions of people in New York and Washington? Can you imagine what the traffic jams would have looked like as people fled those cities? Can you imagine the federal government basically closed down because of these vague warnings?

EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE ACTIONS

Ben Veniste: Well, let's just take one for-instance, if we may. Mr. President, when you were alerted that a "spectacular" attack was being planned by Osama Bin Laden and his Al Qaida operatives, through bombings and something to do with hijacking airplanes, wouldn't it have made sense, given that a catastrophic attack was on its way, to call together all the principals in your Cabinet and get them to do everything in their power to heighten security at the airlines, have the photos of suspected terrorists (which were released the following day to the press) at the check-in counters, increase security around airports, at government buildings, at large skyscrapers, alert NORAD to be on special call, and so on? Why did you not do any of this?

Bush: Dick Clarke was in charge of our counter-terrorism program. He alerted the FAA. If there were any slip-ups, it wasn't my fault. The FBI and the CIA didn't connect the d--

Ben Veniste: My time is running out, Mr. President. So let me just try to parse your answer and follow-up. Despite all the warnings, you, as President of the United States, took no special measures, you ordered no special heightened security warnings, you did not even call your principal advisers together to seek their wisdom on what could be done to batten down the hatches and protect the lives of American citizens. And when the 9/11 attacks did come, the fighter jets at NORAD remained on the ground until more than an hour after the damage was done, even though this was contrary to their quick-response protocols. So my final question to you, Mr. President, is one that a great many Americans want to have presented and answered openly: Did you perhaps do nothing that might have interfered with the 9/11 attacks in order to use the fright and terror that followed to further your own political agenda in--

Cheney: Mr. Chairman, this is outrageous! I object strenuously to this partisan attack on our President, our Administration. He is suggesting treasonous behavior on our part and I will not be a party--

Kean: Your objection is registered, Mr. Vice President. Commissioner Ben Veniste, please rephrase your question in a less confrontational tone and permit the President to answer it.

Cheney: I will NOT answer it. This line of questioning, impugning my motives, cannot be permitted to stand!

Hamilton: That was a most intriguing reaction, Mr. Vice President. Nobody asked you about your actions or your motives. Commissioner Ben Veniste's question was directed at the President -- Mr. George W. Bush, the fellow sitting on your right. Are you suggesting to us that you are the architect of the Administration's policies with regard to pre-9/11 behavior?

Cheney: It was a mere slip of the tongue, Mr. Vice Chairman, expressed in the heat of the moment. I serve to aid the President in his policy decisions. He was always in charge of Executive policy, and he is now.

Bush: That's right. I am now. And was then. And always shall be. Just ask Dick.

Cheney: That's right, Mr. President. You are the man who is in charge.

Bush: But I do count on you, Dick, for your advice and suggestions. I've always found them most useful.

Kean: Um, this might be a good point at which to take our morning break. We still stand in recess for 20 minutes, and then we'll resume the questioning from the other Commissioners. Thank you, Mr. President; thank you, Mr. Vice President.”

“Strat has been here long enough to know that when you copy and paste, you MUST post the source. There is no way he wrote that himself.”

“Good laugh, violin.”

“Gorelick's Stonewall
Newly released memos contradict her 9/11 Commission assertions.

Monday, May 3, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

So President Bush and Vice President Cheney had their long-awaited sit-down with the 9/11 Commission last week--an event the Commissioners took so seriously that two of them walked out early citing prior commitments. Meanwhile, White House Spokesman Scott McClellan says the President disapproved of the Justice Department's release last week of further memos relating to the pre-Patriot Act "wall" between intelligence and law enforcement.

Sigh. We hope Mr. Bush is merely trying to rise above the partisanship that has surrounded the Commission since its grandstanding over Richard Clarke and Condoleezza Rice. Because what John Ashcroft and his team have revealed about the wall is by far the most important thing to come out of the hearings so far. So long as the 9/11 Commissioners are refusing to probe this matter further for fear of damaging a colleague, someone has to look out for the public's right to know.

Readers will recall that in his testimony Attorney General Ashcroft declassified a March 1995 memo written by 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick--then Deputy Attorney General--instructing federal prosecutors and the FBI director to go "beyond what the law requires" in limiting their cooperation. Ms. Gorelick has since responded that she played only a subordinate role in setting this policy, and was only implementing settled law in any case. But the newly released memos appear to contradict Ms. Gorelick on both counts, further strengthening the case for having her resolve the issue in testimony and under oath.

A key piece of evidence is a June 13, 1995 memo to Attorney General Janet Reno from Mary Jo White, then U.S. Attorney and lead World Trade Center bombing prosecutor, and a recipient of the March memo Mr. Ashcroft referenced: "You have also asked whether I am generally comfortable with the instructions. It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with the United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required."

Ms. White added: "Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating" (emphases added).

Then Ms. White asked for a number of changes to the proposed guidelines, most of which Gorelick subordinate Michael Vatis recommends rejecting in a June 19 memo to Ms. Reno. That memo is accompanied by a handwritten note from Ms. Gorelick saying that she concurs.

Or to sum up the exchange: The principal U.S. terrorism prosecutor was trying to tell her boss that she foresaw a real problem with the new and "not legally required" wall policy, but Ms. Reno--again delegating that policy to Ms. Gorelick--largely rebuffed her concerns.
Commission Chairman Tom Kean has thus far been a staunch defender of Ms. Gorelick's refusal to testify. Perhaps he can explain how all of the above squares with Ms. Gorelick's recent remarks on CNN that "The wall was a creature of statute. It's existed since the mid-1980s. And while it's too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid-'90s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy by the way, it was the Attorney General's policy . . ."
We've never expected much from this Commission, but the stonewalling is getting ridiculous. Everyone knows the wall contributed to serious pre-9/11 lapses, such as the FBI's failure to search "20th Hijacker" Zacarias Moussaoui's hard drive following his arrest on immigration violations in August 2001. Yet the Commissioners are treating reasonable requests that they explore the wall fully as some sort of affront.

U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois Patrick Fitzgerald summed up the core issue last October in testimony to Congress: "I was on a prosecution team in New York that began a criminal investigation of Osama bin Laden in early 1996. . . . We could talk to local police officers. We could talk to other U.S. government agencies. We could talk to foreign police officers. Even foreign intelligence personnel. . . . But there was one group of people we were not permitted to talk to. Who? The FBI agents across the street from us in lower Manhattan assigned to a parallel intelligence investigation of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. We could not learn what information they had gathered. That was 'the wall.' "

That's also what the 9/11 Commissioners now seem determined to ignore. How long will they continue protecting their colleague at the cost of their own credibility?




KEEP SPINNIN BOYS, THE WHEELS ARE FIXIN TA FLY OFF!! ! ! !!! !!”

“Attacks on 'Attack'
Debra Saunders
May 3, 2004


Bob Woodward's new book "Plan of Attack" tells the story of White House speechwriter Michael Gerson, a former reporter for U.S. News & World Report, who accompanied President Bush to West Point, where Bush announced a signal change in American foreign policy: a call for more pre-emptive actions. Afterward, Gerson told a reporter the speech would be quoted for years to come. The reporter replied, "There's no news in that speech. You don't use the word Iraq."

"Gerson was stunned," Woodward wrote.

That episode tells you in a nutshell how American newspapers and political pundits have fallen down on the job of covering the war in Iraq. Too often, those of us in the media, including moi, concentrate so much on how one statement contradicts another or on the latest superficial question of the week -- Was there rancor between Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Colin Powell? Is Bush introspective? -- that we can miss the real picture.

That's why the Bushies talked to Woodward and why they recommend his book even if it has provided much fodder for Bush critics. As White House spokesman Ken Lisaius noted, "Plan of Attack" is a "comprehensive account." The Bushies weren't interested in getting a good headline. They talked to Woodward so that they could set the historical record and lay out the context in which they made their decisions.

Yes, the book has launched a number of stories and items that the White House can't like. (You've heard the sound bites: Secretary of State Colin Powell out of the loop. Bush dismissed weapons of mass destruction case as "nice try.") But as media critic Neal Gabler said on "Fox News Watch" over the weekend, people who say "Plan of Attack" vilified Bush "haven't read the book."

Woodward chronicles what impelled the march to war, starting with Iraqi forces firing on U.S. and United Kingdom planes enforcing the United Nations' no-fly zone for years before President Bush assumed office.

After Sept. 11, the administration was alert to the possibility of another big-target attack on American soil. They were terrified at the prospect of a nuclear-powered terrorist attack after a CIA team found a diagram of a dirty bomb and documents on nuclear weapons in Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan sanctuary. Bin Laden had said he had nukes. Where did he get them?

While too much of the intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was old, Woodward reported, new intelligence showed that the Iraqis were "moving and concealing things" before U.N. inspections. Even Powell, the Reluctant Warrior, believed Saddam Hussein had WMDs because, Woodward wrote, "the dictator had used WMD in the 1980s, hidden them in the 1990s, and if he wasn't hiding anything now, all he had to do was come clean." (That is why Powell took the Bush case to the United Nations.)

The whole tactic of using force to compel Saddam Hussein to agree to inspections put intelligence workers and U.S. allies in great risk. Bush knew that the White House could not hang the sword of Damocles indefinitely over Iraq's head of state through countless re-dos of weapons inspections. So it didn't help when French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin gave Hussein a reason to stall when the diplomat announced that "nothing" would justify war against Iraq.

Readers who chant "Bush lied" should avoid the book. They won't want to read that Bush told CIA Director George Tenet not to stretch intelligence. They also won't want to read that, as Bush probed information, Tenet saw the WMD case as "slam dunk" -- given what he had learned from other classified information.

As for the assertion that Bush never had "a plan," it's hard to argue that after reading "Plan of Attack."

Not all of the reportage is flattering to Bush. Woodward reports facts that support critics who believe that the Bush Defense Department did not send sufficient troops to Iraq. I don't know the answer to that question -- what do I know about troop deployment? -- but I appreciate that Woodward laid out the thinking behind Pentagon decisions on troop numbers so that it is in context.

In the world of punditry, too frequently the troop-number controversy is presented in such a one-dimensional way that you can't take it seriously: One expert pronounces the need for more U.S. troops in Iraq. The next critical din says: There should be more foreign troops and fewer U.S. troops. Then: There should be a draft.

The worst of it is, these critics seem to think that a country can go to war without making any mistakes. They speak as if all the decisions are easy and all the information is clear, but for some smarmy reason, Bush refused to do it right.

And then they accuse Bush of being insufficiently thoughtful.”

“Rep. Calvin Bird, R-Springville, told the Deseret Morning News on Thursday that he will drop his bid for re-election after the paper learned he was cited with solicitation in Salt Lake City last September.
[...]
Bird, 56, was driving in the area of 1899 S. State at 4:30 p.m. on Sept. 30 when he pulled over and attempted to solicit sex from an undercover Salt Lake City police officer posing as a prostitute, according to police and court documents.

The female officer issued Bird a citation and he pleaded not guilty two weeks later. On April 12, as part of a plea agreement, he entered a guilty plea that placed him on a year's probation and diverted his case to the John's Program. If he completes the program — which costs $350 and consists of 10 classes — his guilty plea will be set aside in April 2005 and his record expunged.
[...]
A lifelong Springville resident, Bird is the owner of TLC for Kids, a Springville day-care facility.
Full Story”

“Lol the John's program.”

“WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Democratic senator Tuesday called for a congressional investigation into whether Vice President Dick Cheney had a role in awarding a no-bid contract in Iraq to his old company, the oil-services giant Halliburton.

"It's a legitimate question," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "It raises the real question, can the American people trust their government to do the right thing? We have very real rules here."


With both houses of Congress controlled by President Bush's fellow Republicans, the prospect of any Cheney-Halliburton hearings appears unlikely.

Leahy, D-Vermont, faulted Republicans for not wanting to examine the issue.

"This is the same Congress that during the Clinton administration would have five new investigations started by midday Monday, and just add to them all week long," Leahy said. "Now they won't hold hearings, no matter what it is -- if you have cost overruns or anything else -- they just refuse to hold hearings, but of course they should."”

“CNN -- A group of Vietnam veterans opposed to John Kerry's presidential campaign demanded Tuesday that he remove a photograph that appears in one of his television advertisements.

In Tuesday's "cease and desist" letter, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth called on Kerry's campaign to stop what it said was the unauthorized use of the images of some of them in a 60-second biographical spot titled "Lifetime." The ad began running nationwide in early May.

The U.S. Navy photo in question depicts 20 officers, including Kerry, and was taken January 22, 1969, on the island of An Thoi in Vietnam. The ad shows only a portion of the picture -- not all of the men are visible -- and is displayed for two seconds.

A Kerry spokesman dismissed the group's claim, noting the Swift Boat Veterans used an enlarged version of the same photo at a news conference announcing the anti-Kerry group's formation in early May.

"Somehow they didn't call to ask if they could use John Kerry's image," Michael Meehan said. "When it was useful for their politics they show a big blow-up."”

“Pretty bad when even the guys you used to pose with for pictures don't want to be associated with you.”

“I can undrstand how some people wouldn't want their pictures on nationwide television, but the so-called 'Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' are simply a Republican front group.

A campaign of disinformation is the only way Rove et al can hope to counter Kerry's war record --- and Dubya's complete lack of combat service (though he had ample opportunity to serve at the time).”

“CONCORD, N.H. (AP) Attorney General Peter Heed resigned abruptly Tuesday because of an allegation of inappropriate conduct with a woman.

Gov. Craig Benson said the alleged incident occurred at a conference last month in Bretton Woods on preventing sexual and domestic abuse.”

“<
CHICAGO - U.S. Senate candidate Jack Ryan pressured and tricked his then-wife into going to sex clubs with "cages, whips and other apparatus hanging from the ceiling" and tried to get her to have sex in front of others, she alleged in 4-year-old court records released Monday.

In the records from a June 2000 child-custody battle, Ryan's ex-wife - television actress Jeri Ryan of "Star Trek: Voyager" and "Boston Public" fame - alleged that the Republican millionaire's pressure tactics included suggesting once that she owed him a trip to a sex club because he had eaten dinner out with her.

In other instances, she alleged, he took her on what he said were going to be "romantic" trips that turned out instead to be journeys into places where "people were having sex everywhere."

a href="http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Illinois%2BState%2BNews/28C5385C22FAF39F86256EBB00122DF2?OpenDocument&Headline=Ryan%2Bfile%2Bdetails%2Bsex%2Ballegations">Post-Dispatch Springfield Bureau”

“"Nevertheless, I am willing to explore my humanity. Take off your clothes."

-- Seven of Nine”

“Y'know... If a party is going to run on (sexual) morality...”

“Yeah, your right. When a Republican does that stuff it's hypocricy. When Democrats do that it normal behavior and qualifies them for hight office.

I should also point out that damn few Republicans, if any, are defending it as private personal behavior and none of the public's business.”

“The liberal lemmings are off and running again.”

“Rep. Henry Hyde Broke up a family during his seven year adulterous affair!

Mike Bowers Cheated on his wife for FIFTEEN YEARS!

Newt Gingrich Dumped his ex-wife while she was in a hospital bed suffering from cancer....

Bob Dole Cheated on his first wife with his current wife, Elizabeth Dole.

Former Rep. Bob Dornan Reported to have cheated on and beaten his wife.

Ronald Reagan Dumped Jane Wyman by cheating on her with several Hollywood starlets

William Cohen Dumped his white wife for a new black one.

Guy Millner Has been married three times, partly because he has sex with women he isn't married to....

Rush Limbaugh Fat as he may be, he cheated on two of his three wives...

Mitch Skandalakis Hired hookers from his Las Vegas hotel room!

John Warner Dumped his wife for Elizabeth Taylor...

Bill Randall A Florida Congressional candidate and minister, he fathered an illegitimate child during his affair!

Bill McCartney Promise Keepers founder who didn't keep his Promise to his wife and then lied about it for 20 years!

Rep. Dan Burton Had at least six adulterous affairs, and fathered a bastard son who, today, he ignores!!

Rep. Bob Barr Cheated on all three of his wives - and coerced one into having an abortion - then lied about it!

Rudolph Giuliani Boffs his assistant in Gracie Mansion while his wife stays home with the kids!

Sen. Strom Thurmond Cheated on his fourth wife at age 88!!

Bob Packwood Drank huge amounts of hard liquor and then tongue-kissed his female staffers against their will!

Gov. Kirk Fordice Got so hopped up by his mistress that he crashed his Jeep Cherokee and got himself hurt!

Beverly Russell The Christian Coalition coordinator who molested his stepdaughter Susan Smith, who later killed her own kids.

N.C. Rep. Sue Myrick - Who cheated on her husband and left him for another man!

LA. Rep. Bob Livingston - The GOP Speaker-to-never-be, who cheated on his wife Bonnie - with at least four women!

Michael Huffington - The Former GOP Congressman who cheated on his wife Arianna - with other men!

Oklahoma Lt. Gov. Mary Fallin - Who had an adulterous affair with her Security Guard - a state trooper!

Rep. Helen Chenoweth - Who screwed most every married male member of the Idaho Legislature!

The Charleston County, S.C. Solicitor, a Republican, who had an extramarital affair - a GAY affair with another man.....

Jim Bakker - Who eventually got locked up in chains and sent to federal prison.

Jimmy Swaggart - Who broke down crying after he got busted with an ugly hooker!”

“They's the moral majority, don't ya know?”

“Kinda proves my point doesn't it. It's a big deal if it's a Republican. If it was a Democrat, it would just be another ho-hum.”

“No, if it was a Dem. the Reps would be parading down main street calling for impeachment.”

“Defending the sanctity of marriage (by taking a dump on it).”

“And you lemmings would be saying "no thats private and none of our business".”

“It's a slippery slope. Once you begin allowing Republicans to defend "family values", next thing you know, the inmates are running the asylum.”

“There is enough hypocrisy for everyone on this thread.

It is hypocritical for Democrats to attack President George W. Bush's intellect while Al Gore flunked out of college.


Twice.”

“At least Al Gore can read.”

“Can he? Then why is he so stupid?”

“I thought the cry of the 90s was that "we don't care what he does in his private life, as long as he does a good job in office"?

When liberals spread the dirt about conservatives, it's "exposing the truth". When conservatives do it about liberals, it's "Character assassination." Nice double standard.”

“See the word 'Hypocrisy' in the title.

Liberals don't go around telling others what they can do in their private lives.”

“Bottom line--why smear members of one party and not the other?”

“Liberals go around telling people what their personal morals are criminal.”

“And more importantly, what are you doing on TrailTalk after 4 pm, young man?”

“What does NoProb mean when he refers to y'all as lemmings?”

“New Hampshire
(AP)
GOP consultant pleads guilty to phone jamming

The former head of a Republican consulting group has pleaded guilty to jamming Democratic telephone lines in several New Hampshire cities on Election Day two years ago.
The jamming lasted for 1 1/2 hours on Nov. 5, 2002, the day voters decided several races, including a close Senate contest between outgoing Gove. Jeanne Shaheen and GOP Rep. John E. Sununu, who won by fewer than 20,000 votes.
The lines that were jammed were set up so voters could call for rides to the polls.
7/2/04”

“And....speaking of hypocrisy, I'll believe GW is serious about the war on terror when Jenna and Barb sign up.”

“That's not a decision he makes. Or would you like your father to tell you what to do when you grow up?”

“"[T]o get mad at Republican hypocrisy
is the same as getting mad at the air.
It's just there, what can you do about it?"
-- James Carville”

“Rep. Ed Schrock, a two-term Republican congressman from Virginia, resigned recently.

Schrock was a cosponsor of the Federal Marriage Ammendment of July 2004, which aimed to constitutionally prohibit gay marriage. He favored asking military enlistees whether they have had homosexual experiences in an effort to to try to keep gays from serving. He has a 92 percent vote rating from the Christian coalition.

He resigned after a tape one of his calls to a phone sex line seeking male partners for sex surfaced on the web.

Transcript:
"Uh, hi, I weigh 200 pounds, I'm 6'4" (inaudible) blond hair....very muscular, very buffed up, uh, very tanned, uh, I just like to get together a guy from time to time, just to, just to play. I'd like him to be in very good shape, flat stomach, good chest, good arms, well hung, cut, uh, just get naked, play, and see what happens, nothing real heavy duty, but just, fun time, go down on him, he can go down on me, and just take it from there... hope to hear from you. Bye."”

“Wow. He sounds hot. If I weren't married and straight...

Well nevermind.”

“(CBS/AP) Fox News anchor Bill O'Reilly has been slapped with a sexual harassment lawsuit by a female employee who claims the conservative talk-show host repeatedly subjected her to sexual harassment through dinner and phone conversations variously described as lewd, lascivious, vile and threatening.

O'Reilly, 55, also filed a lawsuit. It claims the alleged victim of the harassment, Fox associate producer Andrea Mackris, 33, threatened him with the lawsuit in an attempt to extort hush money from the Fox News star.

The Smoking Gun first reported the charges and counter-charges and posted a copy of Makris' lawsuit on its Web site.

Mackris' lawsuit asserts that during a phone conversation this August, O'Reilly suggested she buy a vibrator and was clearly excited. Before hanging up, she said, O'Reilly told her: "I appreciate the fun phone call."

She contended he made a similar call Sept. 21, ending that one by saying: "Next time you'll come up to my hotel room and we'll make this happen."”

“Looks like someone's tryin' to cash in...”

“The thing I find interesting here is Ms. Mackris left Fox and went to CNN, then returned to Fox during the time this was suppose to be going on.

I have no idea whether it happened as she claimed or not, but I think that seems like a strange thing for her to do, if being around him was so unpleasant. What have I missed?

Seems like he shotgun approach she took looking for someone to sue, makes it look like either a political hit or looking for a windfall. Especially since she never complained to her employer about the problem.”

“Huh. All this time I thought he got off on John Wayne movies.”