Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Monday, November 29, 2004
Sunday, November 28, 2004
Friday, November 26, 2004
Thursday, November 25, 2004
Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties :: Disinformation :: The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness.
Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties :: Disinformation :: The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness.: "Unconstitutional: The War On Our Civil Liberties"
NBC News producer Dan Abrams says Geneva convention should be discarded while killing Iraqi's.
IraqWar: All about IraqWar. News from Iraq: IraqWar and politics, economy.: "NBC News producer Dan Abrams says Geneva convention should be discarded while killing Iraqi's."
Wednesday, November 24, 2004
Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes
Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes: "Confusion As US Troops Raid Wrong Homes"
ID card scheme unveiled by Queen
ID card scheme unveiled by Queen: "ID card scheme unveiled by Queen"
The Daily Howler: Taxes, Gonzlales
The Daily Howler: "GETTING TO YES: In Sundays Post, Alan Berlow offers a remarkable portrait of Alberto Gonzales, the president's attorney general nominee"
The Daily Howler: Taxes and Alberto Gonzales
The Daily Howler: "GETTING TO YES: In Sunday�s Post, Alan Berlow offers a remarkable portrait of Alberto Gonzales, the president's attorney general nominee"
ZNet |Iraq | Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair
ZNet |Iraq | Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair: "Occupier of a Prime Minister's Chair "
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
The New Republic Online: Windsor Knot
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
DAILY EXPRESS
Windsor Knot
by Andrew Sullivan
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 11.23.04
oor Prince Charles. I defy anyone brought up the way he was to have an unfailing sense of the public mood, to be a politician to his fingertips or an intellectual with an open mind. He's a man forever waiting to be something that is only a role. It cannot be easy.
The latest example of his putting his royal foot in his royal mouth is a leaked memo released in a legal suit. A former employee is suing His Royal Highness's staff, alleging sex discrimination and unfair dismissal. A few centuries ago, that employee would no longer have a head. In the 21st century, she's a media star. And the memo? It was a frustrated rant by Charles about staffers always trying to do things beyond their abilities and their resentment when they are denied advancement. Here's the relevant extract:
What is wrong with people now? Why do they all seem to think they are qualified to do things far beyond their technical capabilities? This is to do with the learning culture in schools as a consequence of a child-centered system which admits no failure. People seem to think they can all be pop stars, high court judges, brilliant TV personalities or infinitely more competent heads of state without ever putting in the necessary work or having natural ability. This is the result of social utopianism which believes humanity can be genetically and socially engineered to contradict the lessons of history.
Not very elegantly put. But the prince is surely on to something. The grievance culture does indeed often lead people to claim discrimination when they are merely not being promoted for good reasons. The self-esteem fad does indeed prize confidence in oneself over the harsh measurement of others. Objective standardized tests are highly unpopular among elites, despite the fact that our new elites are largely a product of them.
But learning our own limits is the beginning of wisdom. Some people are simply not as intelligent as others. Some can play the piano brilliantly; others have no clue. I do not regard my own failure to play rugby for the England team as a huge injustice, although my father has yet to recover from it. The world should be glad I am not an accountant. I am not likely to become an Abercrombie and Fitch model. And if I consistently nagged and begged assorted model agencies to hire me, I would have no case. Isn't that really what the prince was saying?
Of course, nuances matter. When the skill-difference between jobs is trivial, sometimes ability can be in the eye of the beholder. Bad management can squelch the most eager and capable of drones. But Charles is right to bemoan the notion that anyone can do anything, and that if they don't, some injustice is somehow being perpetrated. That injustice is called life.
And this, of course, cuts to the chase of the meritocratic project. The inequalities of ability are far more crushing than the inequalities of a rigid class system. And the great mixed blessing of a democracy in which everyone has a chance at success is that inequality of results seems crueler and starker. It cannot be blamed away. We're not there yet, of course. But you only have to read The Bell Curve (no, not its racial chapter) to see where we are headed.
An open market society with an effective educational system in an economy that increasingly values brainpower over brawn will lead inexorably to greater and greater inequality. And that inequality may be even less tolerable for those at the bottom than in days gone by. We can ameliorate this. But even if we improve the education system, the result is greater efficiency in advancing inequality. Human envy will not die. Neither will differences in human ability. And resentment will grow.
Is there any way out? The only answer, I think, is cultural and moral. We have to decouple the notion of virtue and worth from material success. I don't think it's an accident that we see greater emphasis on religious faith and moral values at a time when our economy is increasingly rewarding people on the brutal basis of market worth. It's a way of correcting for inequality, by reminding people that their dignity inheres in something far more profound than their paycheck or social status.
But we can also find ways to make those jobs that pay little mean more. How? By actually acknowledging the worth of all sorts of professions and jobs, the dignity of manual labor, the variety of talents that make for a functioning society. And this is what Charles was also clumsily trying to say. Here's a passage from his "mea culpa" speech yesterday:
Success can come in many forms. In my view it is just as great an achievement to be a plumber or a bricklayer as it is to be a lawyer or a doctor. Not everyone has the same talents or abilities, but everyone, with the right nurturing, can make a real difference to their communities and to the country. This is why I am so encouraged by the efforts which are now being made to recognize vocational skills in our education system and in the wider economy. I know that my ideas are sometimes portrayed as old-fashioned. Well, they may be. But what I am concerned about are the things that are timeless regardless of the age that we live in. Also I have been around long enough to see what were at the time thought of as old-fashioned ideas now come into vogue. Ambition is a good thing and should never be constrained by a person's starting point in life and people must be encouraged to fulfill their aspirations in ways that recognize their different abilities and talents. Thank God they do and that we are not all the same.
Mickey Kaus thought this sounded condescending. I don't think so. I think it's genuine. And the prince, after all, should know. His own role in the world is, practically speaking, completely undeserved. In a meritocracy, he would never have become next in line to be head of state. Every time he speaks with people who have actually done things, created companies, run countries, written brilliant books, he must realize how out of his depth he is. Even his former wife completely out-classed him in the royalty department. But he does have a role; and his job is meaningful. And he does it the best he can.
The overclass, in this sense, gets the underclass. And finding a way to give dignity and meaning to both is one of the central tasks of our time.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
How the Ohio election was rigged for Bush
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Bob Fitrakis: "How the Ohio election was rigged for Bush"
BBC NEWS | Americas | US pledges more aid to Colombia
BBC NEWS | Americas | US pledges more aid to Colombia The money goes to US contractors in large part!
Monday, November 22, 2004
Fox News Guest Says 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Fox News Guest Says 9/11 Was An Inside Job
Technorati Tags: sept11
Technorati Tags: sept11
The Democrats Lost This Election Twenty Years Ago
The Democrats Lost This Election Twenty Years Ago Hmm, wouldn't be my plan, but it's an interesting article.
Iraq Sets Election Despite Fresh Violence
My Way News And I'm going to inherit $1,000,000 from the Easter Bunny.
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civilians gunned down at checkpoint
Darn it, I'd like to trust Aljazeera, but it seems like the headline is an untruth (or jumping to a premature conclusion) from the little that I can tell.
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civilians gunned down at checkpoint
Aljazeera.Net - Iraqi civilians gunned down at checkpoint
TIME.com: The Folklore of Election '04 -- Nov. 22, 2004
This discussion may be pretty interesting....
TIME.com: The Folklore of Election '04 -- Nov. 22, 2004
TIME.com: The Folklore of Election '04 -- Nov. 22, 2004
TIME - Leon Jaroff - : Faith-Based Parks?
TIME - Leon Jaroff - : Faith-Based Parks?: "Faith-Based Parks?
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon"
Creationists meet the Grand Canyon"
TIME.com: A Shot Seen Round The World -- Nov. 29, 2004
Oh my God, I know hurling criticism at a Time Mag. article is like throwing 'spitballs', but how jingoistic can they get?!!!!!! "What a difficult situation the soldiers are in. It's confusing."
The fact that the article's author is female makes me want to mind my manners, but this is hooey!
TIME.com: A Shot Seen Round The World -- Nov. 29, 2004
The fact that the article's author is female makes me want to mind my manners, but this is hooey!
TIME.com: A Shot Seen Round The World -- Nov. 29, 2004
Sunday, November 21, 2004
Washington Post Supplement
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth: "Washington Post printed bitterly homophobic magazine supplement "
BuzzFlash - Daily Headlines and Breaking News
BuzzFlash - Daily Headlines and Breaking News: "Bush Tries to Push His Way Past Clinton to be the First to Emerge from the Door for Clinton's Library Opening. The Monkey Acts Like a Four-Year-Old. 11/21"
Yahoo! News - Violent Attacks Sweep Baghdad; GI Killed
The old "White flag, I surrender", changed my mind trick....
Yahoo! News - Violent Attacks Sweep Baghdad; GI Killed
Yahoo! News - Violent Attacks Sweep Baghdad; GI Killed
Saturday, November 20, 2004
Friday, November 19, 2004
Victor Thorn on Jim Hoffman, Pentagon on 911
FEATURED NEWS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hoffman's
Pentagon Put-on
by Victor Thorn
After reading Jim Hoffman’s flip-flop article on whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11, I realized that this sly old prankster had pulled an elaborate reverse-psychology practical joke on all of us. Yes, you heard me correctly. And even though I won’t divulge his reasons for doing so until the end of this review, I knew my hunch was correct after being struck by not only his sudden lack of sound reasoning skills, but also his inflated concern with the views of debunkers and the mainstream media. Hoffman even went so far as to say that those who defend the “official version” of 9-11 may use the no-757-crash theory to mock truth-seekers as a whole. But aren’t such attacks expected from the disinformation crowd? That’s what they do --- it’s their modus operandi. In fact, I’ve always felt that when these individuals DO target a specific “conspiracy theory,” it’s precisely done so because the people and groups being attacked are getting too close to the truth. Thus, to pattern our behavior in accordance with their opinions is foolish at best; and downright absurd at worst.
One aspect of Hoffman’s “false deconstruction put-on” that drips with irony is this: even though he now contends that a 757 actually did hit the Pentagon, he still presents much more evidence to the contrary that Flight 77 never did crash into this facility. I’m not sure if including this material was an unconscious reaction to his earlier research, but it certainly outweighed and overshadowed his counter-arguments, thus lending credence to the fact that he really isn’t convinced of his newfound stance.
Hoffman also fails to sway us when the subject of “eyewitness” testimony is broached. Not only have Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell “shredded every eyewitness on multiple accounts” (“the eyewitness testimony varies from bad to provably false”), but Professor A.K. Dewdney stated unequivocally on WING TV (November 17, 2004) that in a case such as this, physical scientific evidence far outweighs the unreliability and contradictory nature of eyewitness testimony.
Another argument that Hoffman puts forth to seemingly disprove the no-Boeing 757 theory is one which absolutely holds no water; specifically, he dislikes two particular videos: 9/11 Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site. But to cite an article, book, or video that one deems faulty is not reason enough to logically dismiss an entire phenomenon. Look at it this way: suppose somebody made a documentary contending that 2+2 does not equal 4. Then somebody else watched this video and deduced: since this video about 2+2=4 is inaccurate, that must mean that 2+2 actually doesn’t equal four. It’s faulty logic, and should not have even been included in this article.
Continuing his spoof, Hoffman confronts the issue of whether a Boeing 757 was capable of performing the highly complex Top Gun maneuvers that were credited to it that fateful morning (while at the same time failing to mention how Hani Hanjour has been 100% discredited as the supposed pilot of this craft). Anyway, Hoffman states, “The spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities of a Boeing 757.” Contradicting this supposition, though, is Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg, who argued quite convincingly (WING TV, September 16, 2004) that there was no possibility that this jetliner could have descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn. It’s impossible, and I’ll take Wittenberg’s word over Hoffman’s, for during his career he flew the exact same airliners that were purportedly hijacked on the morning of September 11th. If anybody would know, this man would.
The next area of contention that shows how Hoffman is pulling our leg is his approach to the lack of debris outside (and inside) the Pentagon immediately following this “event” (or was it actually a “staged magic show”). Now Hoffman should know better because I’ve researched airliner crashes and found numerous examples of the wreckage which results from a downed jumbo jetliner. It’s incredibly vast and messy and obvious, with deep skid marks in the ground; plus parts, wings, seats, wheels, aviation equipment, luggage, bodies, and God knows what else strewn in every direction. Where is this corresponding wreckage from an 80-100 ton aircraft at the Pentagon? It doesn’t exist, and volumes of un-confiscated photos are in existence to prove it. For crying out loud, Jim, look at this evidence because the pieces of the puzzle that you’ve laid on the table don’t fit together.
But the most absurd element of Hoffman’s thesis (even more so than his conjecture-filled arguments concerning the large spools sitting in front of the Pentagon) was his reference to French researcher Eric Bart’s explanation for the lack of imprints on the Pentagon’s façade which would be consistent with a Boeing 757. According to Bart, this plane conveniently had bombs strapped to it which (yet again) conveniently exploded when Flight 77 began its impact with the wall. That’s why it was instantly transformed to confetti. Of course this version of events contradicts the military’s first explanation, which concluded that the plane in question was “vaporized” into thin air (while human flesh, trees, and books in the immediate vicinity weren’t vaporized).
What most troubles me about Hoffman’s line of reasoning is that he says most people can’t handle the no-757 argument; then he turns around and lays-out a tale so ludicrous that it’s laughable. But hold on, folks, for there’s more --- he concludes that, according to Eric Bart, “the crash of a 757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane had crashed.” Say what? Do these men want us to believe that the government DID crash a 757 into the Pentagon; then deliberately made it appear as if one hadn’t crashed there (a “complex reverse deception” as Richard Stanley calls it)? This reasoning is akin to Alice falling down the rabbit hole in Wonderland.
Lastly, Hoffman proves once-and-for-all that he’s deliberately toying with us when he brings Left Gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Chip Berlet into the fray, along with a CIA agent, The Washington Post, and the New York Times. What does he expect these shysters to say? They’re disinformation specialists – and that’s what they do for a living – they debunk! But instead of trotting these bozos around the arena, why not introduce some real meat and potatoes evidence into this case? C’mon, Jim, you can come clean now and tell us that it’s all been a big joke.
In the end, Hoffman almost seems to be saying: just because the no-757-theory is a difficult pill for many people to swallow, we should dismiss it completely lest we “damage the entire 9-11 cause.” But in all honesty, it is reports such as this which do the most harm, for not only are his arguments disingenuous, they’re also flimsy and lightweight beyond words. I mean, since when should “how the issue plays” affect our desire for the truth? It shouldn’t, and in all honesty, when I first heard about this article, I thought, “Y’know, I’ve always respected Jim Hoffman’s work. Maybe he’s onto something that everyone else missed.” But upon reading his thesis very closely, I was supremely disappointed, for there was nothing there. Zero. A complete wash. So, my only hope at this point is that maybe Hoffman wanted to bring more attention to the Pentagon case, so he wrote a completely ridiculous piece that he knew everyone would trash, thus ultimately showing how strong the no-757 case really is. Isn’t it obvious what Hoffman’s motives are? He purposefully wrote the lamest debunking paper possible to prove the inherent flaws and weaknesses of the government’s “official” explanation. It was all an exercise in reverse-psychology … a grand charade which pretended to debunk the no-757-theory, but in reality debunked the debunkers! Well done, Jim, and it was all worth a good laugh – but hey, no more of these crafty masquerades, okay ---- you had us worried there for awhile! Read other articles here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Hoffman's
Pentagon Put-on
by Victor Thorn
After reading Jim Hoffman’s flip-flop article on whether or not a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon on the morning of 9-11, I realized that this sly old prankster had pulled an elaborate reverse-psychology practical joke on all of us. Yes, you heard me correctly. And even though I won’t divulge his reasons for doing so until the end of this review, I knew my hunch was correct after being struck by not only his sudden lack of sound reasoning skills, but also his inflated concern with the views of debunkers and the mainstream media. Hoffman even went so far as to say that those who defend the “official version” of 9-11 may use the no-757-crash theory to mock truth-seekers as a whole. But aren’t such attacks expected from the disinformation crowd? That’s what they do --- it’s their modus operandi. In fact, I’ve always felt that when these individuals DO target a specific “conspiracy theory,” it’s precisely done so because the people and groups being attacked are getting too close to the truth. Thus, to pattern our behavior in accordance with their opinions is foolish at best; and downright absurd at worst.
One aspect of Hoffman’s “false deconstruction put-on” that drips with irony is this: even though he now contends that a 757 actually did hit the Pentagon, he still presents much more evidence to the contrary that Flight 77 never did crash into this facility. I’m not sure if including this material was an unconscious reaction to his earlier research, but it certainly outweighed and overshadowed his counter-arguments, thus lending credence to the fact that he really isn’t convinced of his newfound stance.
Hoffman also fails to sway us when the subject of “eyewitness” testimony is broached. Not only have Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell “shredded every eyewitness on multiple accounts” (“the eyewitness testimony varies from bad to provably false”), but Professor A.K. Dewdney stated unequivocally on WING TV (November 17, 2004) that in a case such as this, physical scientific evidence far outweighs the unreliability and contradictory nature of eyewitness testimony.
Another argument that Hoffman puts forth to seemingly disprove the no-Boeing 757 theory is one which absolutely holds no water; specifically, he dislikes two particular videos: 9/11 Pentagon Strike and 911 In Plane Site. But to cite an article, book, or video that one deems faulty is not reason enough to logically dismiss an entire phenomenon. Look at it this way: suppose somebody made a documentary contending that 2+2 does not equal 4. Then somebody else watched this video and deduced: since this video about 2+2=4 is inaccurate, that must mean that 2+2 actually doesn’t equal four. It’s faulty logic, and should not have even been included in this article.
Continuing his spoof, Hoffman confronts the issue of whether a Boeing 757 was capable of performing the highly complex Top Gun maneuvers that were credited to it that fateful morning (while at the same time failing to mention how Hani Hanjour has been 100% discredited as the supposed pilot of this craft). Anyway, Hoffman states, “The spiral dive attack maneuver was well within the capabilities of a Boeing 757.” Contradicting this supposition, though, is Air Force and commercial pilot Russ Wittenberg, who argued quite convincingly (WING TV, September 16, 2004) that there was no possibility that this jetliner could have descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn. It’s impossible, and I’ll take Wittenberg’s word over Hoffman’s, for during his career he flew the exact same airliners that were purportedly hijacked on the morning of September 11th. If anybody would know, this man would.
The next area of contention that shows how Hoffman is pulling our leg is his approach to the lack of debris outside (and inside) the Pentagon immediately following this “event” (or was it actually a “staged magic show”). Now Hoffman should know better because I’ve researched airliner crashes and found numerous examples of the wreckage which results from a downed jumbo jetliner. It’s incredibly vast and messy and obvious, with deep skid marks in the ground; plus parts, wings, seats, wheels, aviation equipment, luggage, bodies, and God knows what else strewn in every direction. Where is this corresponding wreckage from an 80-100 ton aircraft at the Pentagon? It doesn’t exist, and volumes of un-confiscated photos are in existence to prove it. For crying out loud, Jim, look at this evidence because the pieces of the puzzle that you’ve laid on the table don’t fit together.
But the most absurd element of Hoffman’s thesis (even more so than his conjecture-filled arguments concerning the large spools sitting in front of the Pentagon) was his reference to French researcher Eric Bart’s explanation for the lack of imprints on the Pentagon’s façade which would be consistent with a Boeing 757. According to Bart, this plane conveniently had bombs strapped to it which (yet again) conveniently exploded when Flight 77 began its impact with the wall. That’s why it was instantly transformed to confetti. Of course this version of events contradicts the military’s first explanation, which concluded that the plane in question was “vaporized” into thin air (while human flesh, trees, and books in the immediate vicinity weren’t vaporized).
What most troubles me about Hoffman’s line of reasoning is that he says most people can’t handle the no-757 argument; then he turns around and lays-out a tale so ludicrous that it’s laughable. But hold on, folks, for there’s more --- he concludes that, according to Eric Bart, “the crash of a 757 was engineered to make it appear that no such plane had crashed.” Say what? Do these men want us to believe that the government DID crash a 757 into the Pentagon; then deliberately made it appear as if one hadn’t crashed there (a “complex reverse deception” as Richard Stanley calls it)? This reasoning is akin to Alice falling down the rabbit hole in Wonderland.
Lastly, Hoffman proves once-and-for-all that he’s deliberately toying with us when he brings Left Gatekeepers such as Amy Goodman and Chip Berlet into the fray, along with a CIA agent, The Washington Post, and the New York Times. What does he expect these shysters to say? They’re disinformation specialists – and that’s what they do for a living – they debunk! But instead of trotting these bozos around the arena, why not introduce some real meat and potatoes evidence into this case? C’mon, Jim, you can come clean now and tell us that it’s all been a big joke.
In the end, Hoffman almost seems to be saying: just because the no-757-theory is a difficult pill for many people to swallow, we should dismiss it completely lest we “damage the entire 9-11 cause.” But in all honesty, it is reports such as this which do the most harm, for not only are his arguments disingenuous, they’re also flimsy and lightweight beyond words. I mean, since when should “how the issue plays” affect our desire for the truth? It shouldn’t, and in all honesty, when I first heard about this article, I thought, “Y’know, I’ve always respected Jim Hoffman’s work. Maybe he’s onto something that everyone else missed.” But upon reading his thesis very closely, I was supremely disappointed, for there was nothing there. Zero. A complete wash. So, my only hope at this point is that maybe Hoffman wanted to bring more attention to the Pentagon case, so he wrote a completely ridiculous piece that he knew everyone would trash, thus ultimately showing how strong the no-757 case really is. Isn’t it obvious what Hoffman’s motives are? He purposefully wrote the lamest debunking paper possible to prove the inherent flaws and weaknesses of the government’s “official” explanation. It was all an exercise in reverse-psychology … a grand charade which pretended to debunk the no-757-theory, but in reality debunked the debunkers! Well done, Jim, and it was all worth a good laugh – but hey, no more of these crafty masquerades, okay ---- you had us worried there for awhile! Read other articles here
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLACKFIVE: 1 Post That Started It All Archives
General Background from Blogger about how a French General pissed him off.
BLACKFIVE: 1 Post That Started It All Archives
BLACKFIVE: 1 Post That Started It All Archives
BLACKFIVE: Mosque Shooting Part 3 - Retired Marine Generals Get Ready to Wage War...
Hmmm maybe Bush needs to stamp out evil where-ever we find it!
BLACKFIVE: Mosque Shooting Part 3 - Retired Marine Generals Get Ready to Wage War...
BLACKFIVE: Mosque Shooting Part 3 - Retired Marine Generals Get Ready to Wage War...
Thursday, November 18, 2004
9/11 Fund Disbursements Could Have Been More Fair, Administrator Says (washingtonpost.com)
This so misses the point. The horrible thing was that people were pressured. By accepting the $, they gave away their right to sue.
9/11 Fund Disbursements Could Have Been More Fair, Administrator Says (washingtonpost.com)
9/11 Fund Disbursements Could Have Been More Fair, Administrator Says (washingtonpost.com)
Kerry's troublesome nest egg
I don't know what to think. I would add that the money could be used to request recounts, but there may be election law against that.
Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.
Daily Kos :: Political Analysis and other daily rants on the state of the nation.
Wednesday, November 17, 2004
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
Monday, November 15, 2004
Keeping The Faith, James Gertmenian, 11/7/04
Don't really think this is significant, but evidently it offers solace or meaning to some.
For my 2 cents, it offers false hope based on a false premise.
Keeping The Faith, James Gertmenian, 11/7/04
For my 2 cents, it offers false hope based on a false premise.
Keeping The Faith, James Gertmenian, 11/7/04
Safire to Retire from 'NYT' Op-Ed Column
Something to be happy about...
Safire to Retire from 'NYT' Op-Ed Column
Safire to Retire from 'NYT' Op-Ed Column
Sunday, November 14, 2004
Saturday, November 13, 2004
US army is Hiding Facts
Copied from http://raedinthemiddle.blogspot.com
US army is Hiding Facts
As usual, and as the bush administration is always depending on lies, the US army spokesmen are LYING to the world about what is happening in Iraq. It is not just that they are preventing any news to go to the world, as the Iraq's media regulator has warned news organisations to stick to the government line on the US-led attack in Falluja or face legal action. The new lie of the US army is announcing yesterday that they have 178 soldiers injured. Today, Reuters announced that 227 US soldiers were transferred to Germany since the Falluja attack started. These soldiers are "heavily injured", which means that there are other dozens or hundreds that were not moved to Germany.This is what we can see, because they should move the heavily wounded soldiers outside the country. I think a lot is happening inside that no one knows about. Many other war crimes, many other librations, bush style.A doctor called "Ali Abbas" was talking from Falluja today; he said doctors can’t do anything to help wounded people there. The Shia doctor said that dead bodies are spread over the streets, and no one can bury them.Another man from Fallujah, an Iraqi journalist as described by the Washington Post, reported seeing burned U.S. vehicles and bodies in the street, with more buried under the wreckage. He said two men trying to move a corpse were shot down by a sniper. This is exactly what Saddam Hussien did to Iraqis in the south in the year 1991. He killed them, and prevented anyone from burying the dead bodies, so that everyone would learn a lesson from the smell of death. bush and his killers in Iraq seem to be learning fast. The same Iraqi journalist said that two of the three small clinics in the city have been bombed, and in one case, medical staff and patients were killed, he said. A U.S. tank was positioned beside the third clinic, and residents were afraid to go there, he said. " People are afraid of even looking out the window because of snipers," he said, asking that he not be named for his own safety. "The Americans are shooting anything that moves." Doesn’t this remind us of what the israeli forces do for Palestinians? The Israeli troops even attack hospitals and kidnap injured fighters. This will be the next step for the US army in Iraq.Another witness is Rasoul Ibrahim, a father of three, fled Falluja on Thursday morning and arrived with his wife and children in Habbaniya, about 12 miles to the west, on Thursday night. He said families left in the city were in desperate need. " There's no water. People are drinking dirty water. Children are dying. People are eating flour because there's no proper food," he told aid workers in Habbaniya, which has become a refugee camp, with around 2,000 families sheltering there. The use of local services as weapons in battles against Iraqis is becoming a notion of the US occupying forces there.Ubadi from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society said many families taking refuge in Habbaniya and other villages nearby were suffering from diarrhoea and malnutrition and needed medicine as well as basic necessities such as lentils, sugar, bread, tea and candles. She said a convoy of aid, including drinking water, food and medicine, was ready to leave for Falluja from Amiriya, a town to the south, but didn’t have the permission from U.S. forces.
Posted by: Raed Jarrar / 5:22 PM (26) comments
US army is Hiding Facts
As usual, and as the bush administration is always depending on lies, the US army spokesmen are LYING to the world about what is happening in Iraq. It is not just that they are preventing any news to go to the world, as the Iraq's media regulator has warned news organisations to stick to the government line on the US-led attack in Falluja or face legal action. The new lie of the US army is announcing yesterday that they have 178 soldiers injured. Today, Reuters announced that 227 US soldiers were transferred to Germany since the Falluja attack started. These soldiers are "heavily injured", which means that there are other dozens or hundreds that were not moved to Germany.This is what we can see, because they should move the heavily wounded soldiers outside the country. I think a lot is happening inside that no one knows about. Many other war crimes, many other librations, bush style.A doctor called "Ali Abbas" was talking from Falluja today; he said doctors can’t do anything to help wounded people there. The Shia doctor said that dead bodies are spread over the streets, and no one can bury them.Another man from Fallujah, an Iraqi journalist as described by the Washington Post, reported seeing burned U.S. vehicles and bodies in the street, with more buried under the wreckage. He said two men trying to move a corpse were shot down by a sniper. This is exactly what Saddam Hussien did to Iraqis in the south in the year 1991. He killed them, and prevented anyone from burying the dead bodies, so that everyone would learn a lesson from the smell of death. bush and his killers in Iraq seem to be learning fast. The same Iraqi journalist said that two of the three small clinics in the city have been bombed, and in one case, medical staff and patients were killed, he said. A U.S. tank was positioned beside the third clinic, and residents were afraid to go there, he said. " People are afraid of even looking out the window because of snipers," he said, asking that he not be named for his own safety. "The Americans are shooting anything that moves." Doesn’t this remind us of what the israeli forces do for Palestinians? The Israeli troops even attack hospitals and kidnap injured fighters. This will be the next step for the US army in Iraq.Another witness is Rasoul Ibrahim, a father of three, fled Falluja on Thursday morning and arrived with his wife and children in Habbaniya, about 12 miles to the west, on Thursday night. He said families left in the city were in desperate need. " There's no water. People are drinking dirty water. Children are dying. People are eating flour because there's no proper food," he told aid workers in Habbaniya, which has become a refugee camp, with around 2,000 families sheltering there. The use of local services as weapons in battles against Iraqis is becoming a notion of the US occupying forces there.Ubadi from the Iraqi Red Crescent Society said many families taking refuge in Habbaniya and other villages nearby were suffering from diarrhoea and malnutrition and needed medicine as well as basic necessities such as lentils, sugar, bread, tea and candles. She said a convoy of aid, including drinking water, food and medicine, was ready to leave for Falluja from Amiriya, a town to the south, but didn’t have the permission from U.S. forces.
Posted by: Raed Jarrar / 5:22 PM (26) comments
Friday, November 12, 2004
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Moveable Feast of Terrorism
Dowd loves to entertain, and sometimes her entertainment touches on truth.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Moveable Feast of Terrorism
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: A Moveable Feast of Terrorism
'Bush Stole Election' Conspiracy Theories Debunked
newsmax would "prove" that Jesus was really a woman if it would serve their cause (Is supporting Repubs their cause, I wonder, because many true conservatives came out in support for Kerry)! Do you find the arguments shown in this article a clear debunking?
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover Story
Bush critic at CIA resigns, and starts talking
My first take on this situation is that this guy is part of the coverup. Hope he proves me wrong.
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth
AMERICAblog: Because a great nation deserves the truth
DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL! Pseudo-cons claim that “elites” mock religion. The truth is really quite different:
The Daily Howler: "DON�T ASK, DON�T TELL! Pseudo-cons claim that �elites� mock religion. The truth is really quite different:"
Thursday, November 11, 2004
BBC NEWS | Middle East | The mystery of Arafat's money
Posted as an interesting ref.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | The mystery of Arafat's money
BBC NEWS | Middle East | The mystery of Arafat's money
Wednesday, November 10, 2004
We've Been Had
Break for News - Your Independent News Source: "We've Been Had
By Edgar J. Steele
8th November, 2004
BreakForNews.com
'It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency.'
--George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaw
By Edgar J. Steele
8th November, 2004
BreakForNews.com
'It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity and incumbency.'
--George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaw
Tuesday, November 09, 2004
Monday, November 08, 2004
Sunday, November 07, 2004
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Friday, November 05, 2004
No Surrender
November 5, 2004OP-ED COLUMNIST
No Surrender
By PAUL KRUGMAN
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.
Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.
So what should the Democrats do?
One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.
Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.
But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.
Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.
In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.
What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.
It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
No Surrender
By PAUL KRUGMAN
President Bush isn't a conservative. He's a radical - the leader of a coalition that deeply dislikes America as it is. Part of that coalition wants to tear down the legacy of Franklin Roosevelt, eviscerating Social Security and, eventually, Medicare. Another part wants to break down the barriers between church and state. And thanks to a heavy turnout by evangelical Christians, Mr. Bush has four more years to advance that radical agenda.
Democrats are now, understandably, engaged in self-examination. But while it's O.K. to think things over, those who abhor the direction Mr. Bush is taking the country must maintain their intensity; they must not succumb to defeatism.
This election did not prove the Republicans unbeatable. Mr. Bush did not win in a landslide. Without the fading but still potent aura of 9/11, when the nation was ready to rally around any leader, he wouldn't have won at all. And future events will almost surely offer opportunities for a Democratic comeback.
I don't hope for more and worse scandals and failures during Mr. Bush's second term, but I do expect them. The resurgence of Al Qaeda, the debacle in Iraq, the explosion of the budget deficit and the failure to create jobs weren't things that just happened to occur on Mr. Bush's watch. They were the consequences of bad policies made by people who let ideology trump reality.
Those people still have Mr. Bush's ear, and his election victory will only give them the confidence to make even bigger mistakes.
So what should the Democrats do?
One faction of the party is already calling for the Democrats to blur the differences between themselves and the Republicans. Or at least that's what I think Al From of the Democratic Leadership Council means when he says, "We've got to close the cultural gap." But that's a losing proposition.
Yes, Democrats need to make it clear that they support personal virtue, that they value fidelity, responsibility, honesty and faith. This shouldn't be a hard case to make: Democrats are as likely as Republicans to be faithful spouses and good parents, and Republicans are as likely as Democrats to be adulterers, gamblers or drug abusers. Massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the country; blue states, on average, have lower rates of out-of-wedlock births than red states.
But Democrats are not going to get the support of people whose votes are motivated, above all, by their opposition to abortion and gay rights (and, in the background, opposition to minority rights). All they will do if they try to cater to intolerance is alienate their own base.
Does this mean that the Democrats are condemned to permanent minority status? No. The religious right - not to be confused with religious Americans in general - isn't a majority, or even a dominant minority. It's just one bloc of voters, whom the Republican Party has learned to mobilize with wedge issues like this year's polarizing debate over gay marriage.
Rather than catering to voters who will never support them, the Democrats - who are doing pretty well at getting the votes of moderates and independents - need to become equally effective at mobilizing their own base.
In fact, they have made good strides, showing much more unity and intensity than anyone thought possible a year ago. But for the lingering aura of 9/11, they would have won.
What they need to do now is develop a political program aimed at maintaining and increasing the intensity. That means setting some realistic but critical goals for the next year.
Democrats shouldn't cave in to Mr. Bush when he tries to appoint highly partisan judges - even when the effort to block a bad appointment fails, it will show supporters that the party stands for something. They should gear up for a bid to retake the Senate or at least make a major dent in the Republican lead. They should keep the pressure on Mr. Bush when he makes terrible policy decisions, which he will.
It's all right to take a few weeks to think it over. (Heads up to readers: I'll be starting a long-planned break next week, to work on a economics textbook. I'll be back in January.) But Democrats mustn't give up the fight. What's at stake isn't just the fate of their party, but the fate of America as we know it.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company Home Privacy Policy Search Corrections RSS Help Back to Top
Leaked Report Says Gulf War Syndrome Caused by Sarin Exposure (fix)
Leaked document suggests exposure to Sarin gas during the Gulf War is the cause of Gulf War Syndrome. During the war, between 1 & 2 million alarms went off suggesting chemical exposure but all were put down to false alarms. After the amount of chemical weapons sold to Iraq before the war, is it not unreasonable to suggest that there were chemical attacks and the soldiers and Iraqis have suffered since then? After all, psychological damage may explain some things like mood swings etc but not the deformaties in children born to those fought in this war.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Are HISD and Aramark cooking the books to feast on federal breakfast subsidies?
(11/12/2004) Just heard the news that Aramark has the contract to serve Kentucky Prisons
Tuesday, November 02, 2004
Day of the Dead: The Haunting of the White House
"The Haunting of the White House"
(Editor's Note: We are pleased on this evening of Nov. 1st to 2nd, known in Mexico as "The Day of the Dead," to publish the following exclusive: a Republican-meets-Democrat, one-two punch editorial by Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts, on "The Haunting of the White House." An earlier version of the piece was written in response to a request from editors of The New York Times. So far the Times has declined to publish, but other print publications are still considering it. Meanwhile, you can feel free to forward it to the nine winds on the Web, with our thanks. - 911Truth.org Staff)
Day of the Dead: The Haunting of the White House
By Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts
November 1, 2004
Something is rising from the ashes of September 11: the spectre of questions that will haunt our country until answered.
Months after the release of the official 9/11 Commission Report - even as Congress moves to implement its proposals for a radical centralization of security forces - growing numbers of Americans are doubting their own government's account of what really happened on September 11, and how.
From the first, the Bush Administration resisted investigation and disclosure. Families of September 11 victims were forced to lobby the administration and Congress for a full and independent inquiry. They fought for 14 months, blocked every step of the way by the White House.
The political games reached such a point that the survivors of the worst attack ever on American soil were forced to hold a candlelight vigil in front of the White House. A vigil for the truth.
The White House finally assented in December 2002 to the establishment of an independent commission, under former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. Still, the administration pushed for a hand-picked panel, with a narrow focus on intelligence failures and recommendations.
The families demanded a full investigation, posing nearly 400 questions to the Kean Commission. The commissioners said they welcomed these queries. But their final report ignored most of the unanswered questions. Still posted on the website of the September 11 Family Steering Committee, these questions are a stark reminder of the Kean Commission's failures.
Now these same questions have been submitted to the New York Attorney General. Last week, the New York City office of Eliot Spitzer received a citizens' complaint to open a legal inquiry into crimes still unsolved, more than three years later.
So begins the haunting of the White House.
Driven by survivor families, independent researchers, journalists, and a growing number of ordinary citizens, an emergent "9/11 truth movement" has organized several public inquiries into the events of September 11 during the past year. As co-chairs of the first 9/11 Citizens' Commission, held in New York City in September, we were entrusted with answering questions the Kean Commission ignored.
What did we hear? We heard evidence of specific advance warnings about the 9/11 attacks from overseas. We heard about the spiking of FBI terrorism investigations and the lack of response during the attacks by high officials, including George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.
We heard about air toxicity at Ground Zero still afflicting firefighters, first responders, and New York residents - and how, in the days after September 11, the White House intervened to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a strong warning that the air in Lower Manhattan was unsafe to breathe.
We also learned that, although there was a stunning abandonment of standard procedure for hijackings and air defense on September 11, the 9/11 Commission Report fails to issue a call for official accountability.
As Kean Commission members travel the country to promote the findings of their report, we know many people are standing up to ask them tough questions about these and many other open issues. But ordinary people lack the subpeona powers necessary for a full discovery of the facts. Citizens' investigations can only go so far.
Some of those who testified before us in New York therefore explored the case for a grand-jury investigation. Possible charges included criminal negligence, failure to perform official duties, criminal facilitation, liability for accessorial conduct, conspiracy and obstruction of justice by high-ranking U.S. government officials.
These charges, now raised in the petition to the New York State Attorney General, may sound extreme. But they reflect a growing concern within the public. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents last August showed that 49 percent believe some high officials knew about the attacks in advance and "consciously failed" to take preventive action. 41 percent of state residents overall shared that view.
A full 66 percent of New York City residents in the survey agreed the case of 9/11 should be reopened by Congress - or by Eliot Spitzer. A Congressional inquiry that respects the pressing nature of these questions is long overdue.
And so now we have no recourse but to stand vigil in front of Eliot Spitzer's office. Until the unanswered questions about 9/11 are laid to rest, by a truly independent investigation that does not declare legitimate avenues of inquiry off-limits, they will continue to haunt our country - and whoever sits in the White House next year.
------------
Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, won this year's primary as the Democratic nominee for her former seat and is favored in tomorrow's election. Catherine Austin Fitts is a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc.
The questions of the Family Steering Committee are online at www.911independentcommission.org/questions.htmlThe Complaint and Petition to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is online at www.Justicefor911.org
------------
The above is cleared for free non-commercial republication and distribution by e-mail, if no changes are made and the following URL of the original is included:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916
(Editor's Note: We are pleased on this evening of Nov. 1st to 2nd, known in Mexico as "The Day of the Dead," to publish the following exclusive: a Republican-meets-Democrat, one-two punch editorial by Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts, on "The Haunting of the White House." An earlier version of the piece was written in response to a request from editors of The New York Times. So far the Times has declined to publish, but other print publications are still considering it. Meanwhile, you can feel free to forward it to the nine winds on the Web, with our thanks. - 911Truth.org Staff)
Day of the Dead: The Haunting of the White House
By Cynthia McKinney and Catherine Austin Fitts
November 1, 2004
Something is rising from the ashes of September 11: the spectre of questions that will haunt our country until answered.
Months after the release of the official 9/11 Commission Report - even as Congress moves to implement its proposals for a radical centralization of security forces - growing numbers of Americans are doubting their own government's account of what really happened on September 11, and how.
From the first, the Bush Administration resisted investigation and disclosure. Families of September 11 victims were forced to lobby the administration and Congress for a full and independent inquiry. They fought for 14 months, blocked every step of the way by the White House.
The political games reached such a point that the survivors of the worst attack ever on American soil were forced to hold a candlelight vigil in front of the White House. A vigil for the truth.
The White House finally assented in December 2002 to the establishment of an independent commission, under former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean. Still, the administration pushed for a hand-picked panel, with a narrow focus on intelligence failures and recommendations.
The families demanded a full investigation, posing nearly 400 questions to the Kean Commission. The commissioners said they welcomed these queries. But their final report ignored most of the unanswered questions. Still posted on the website of the September 11 Family Steering Committee, these questions are a stark reminder of the Kean Commission's failures.
Now these same questions have been submitted to the New York Attorney General. Last week, the New York City office of Eliot Spitzer received a citizens' complaint to open a legal inquiry into crimes still unsolved, more than three years later.
So begins the haunting of the White House.
Driven by survivor families, independent researchers, journalists, and a growing number of ordinary citizens, an emergent "9/11 truth movement" has organized several public inquiries into the events of September 11 during the past year. As co-chairs of the first 9/11 Citizens' Commission, held in New York City in September, we were entrusted with answering questions the Kean Commission ignored.
What did we hear? We heard evidence of specific advance warnings about the 9/11 attacks from overseas. We heard about the spiking of FBI terrorism investigations and the lack of response during the attacks by high officials, including George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers.
We heard about air toxicity at Ground Zero still afflicting firefighters, first responders, and New York residents - and how, in the days after September 11, the White House intervened to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from issuing a strong warning that the air in Lower Manhattan was unsafe to breathe.
We also learned that, although there was a stunning abandonment of standard procedure for hijackings and air defense on September 11, the 9/11 Commission Report fails to issue a call for official accountability.
As Kean Commission members travel the country to promote the findings of their report, we know many people are standing up to ask them tough questions about these and many other open issues. But ordinary people lack the subpeona powers necessary for a full discovery of the facts. Citizens' investigations can only go so far.
Some of those who testified before us in New York therefore explored the case for a grand-jury investigation. Possible charges included criminal negligence, failure to perform official duties, criminal facilitation, liability for accessorial conduct, conspiracy and obstruction of justice by high-ranking U.S. government officials.
These charges, now raised in the petition to the New York State Attorney General, may sound extreme. But they reflect a growing concern within the public. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents last August showed that 49 percent believe some high officials knew about the attacks in advance and "consciously failed" to take preventive action. 41 percent of state residents overall shared that view.
A full 66 percent of New York City residents in the survey agreed the case of 9/11 should be reopened by Congress - or by Eliot Spitzer. A Congressional inquiry that respects the pressing nature of these questions is long overdue.
And so now we have no recourse but to stand vigil in front of Eliot Spitzer's office. Until the unanswered questions about 9/11 are laid to rest, by a truly independent investigation that does not declare legitimate avenues of inquiry off-limits, they will continue to haunt our country - and whoever sits in the White House next year.
------------
Cynthia McKinney, a five-term U.S. Congresswoman from Georgia's fourth district from 1993 to 2003, won this year's primary as the Democratic nominee for her former seat and is favored in tomorrow's election. Catherine Austin Fitts is a former Assistant Secretary of Housing under President George Bush Sr. and a former managing director and board member of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc.
The questions of the Family Steering Committee are online at www.911independentcommission.org/questions.htmlThe Complaint and Petition to Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is online at www.Justicefor911.org
------------
The above is cleared for free non-commercial republication and distribution by e-mail, if no changes are made and the following URL of the original is included:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041101130426916
Bush's Hidden Campaign Agenda - He Talked Of Invading
Bush's Hidden Campaign Agenda - He Talked Of Invading Iraq While Campaigning In 2000 According To His Own BiographerBy Russ Baker10-29-4
HOUSTON - Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.
In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.
According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
The revelations on Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.
Herskowitz also revealed the following:
-In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."
- Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
-Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews -- in which he expressed consternation that Bush's true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people -- Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.
Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. "I don't know anybody that's ever said a bad word about Mickey," said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz's account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.
One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. "I can't go near this," he said.
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
"I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. "He said, 'No I haven't, and I won't, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.' Brent would not have talked to him without the old man's okaying it." Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush's administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.
Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destructionI'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s fatherIt remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker. "
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.
Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush's father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)
In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush's staff expressed displeasure -- often over Herskowitz's use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush's own words to describe the Texan's unprofitable business ventures, writing: "the companies were floundering". "I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, 'You've got some wrong information.' I didn't bother to say, 'Well you know where it came from.' [The lawyer] said, 'We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.' "
In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz's account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. "The lawyer called me and said, 'Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.' "
"They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it," he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.
According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard - and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was "excused." This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush's claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama - though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial "rewards" for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.
Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 - which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane - military or civilian - again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.
In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush's father to write a book about the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. "Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his officeHe said, 'I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.' "
"He said to me, 'I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it's amazing how many times something good will come out of it.' I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], 'Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?' He said yes."
That book, "Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush," was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family's perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate "as-told-to" author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz's other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.
After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. "I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying 'Watch your back.' "
Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing - a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself - it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.
So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush's true feelings.
"He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake," Herskowitz said. "That was one of the keys to being a leader."
http://www.gnn.tv
Disclaimer
document.write("Email This Article");
Email This Article MainPagehttp://www.rense.comThis Site Served by TheHostPros
HOUSTON - Two years before the September 11 attacks, presidential candidate George W. Bush was already talking privately about the political benefits of attacking Iraq, according to his former ghost writer, who held many conversations with then-Texas Governor Bush in preparation for a planned autobiography.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade.if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow. The moment, Herskowitz said, came in the wake of the September 11 attacks. "Suddenly, he's at 91 percent in the polls, and he'd barely crawled out of the bunker."
That President Bush and his advisers had Iraq on their minds long before weapons inspectors had finished their work - and long before alleged Iraqi ties with terrorists became a central rationale for war - has been raised elsewhere, including in a book based on recollections of former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. However, Herskowitz was in a unique position to hear Bush's unguarded and unfiltered views on Iraq, war and other matters - well before he became president.
In 1999, Herskowitz struck a deal with the campaign of George W. Bush about a ghost-written autobiography, which was ultimately titled A Charge to Keep : My Journey to the White House, and he and Bush signed a contract in which the two would split the proceeds. The publisher was William Morrow. Herskowitz was given unimpeded access to Bush, and the two met approximately 20 times so Bush could share his thoughts. Herskowitz began working on the book in May, 1999, and says that within two months he had completed and submitted some 10 chapters, with a remaining 4-6 chapters still on his computer. Herskowitz was replaced as Bush's ghostwriter after Bush's handlers concluded that the candidate's views and life experiences were not being cast in a sufficiently positive light.
According to Herskowitz, who has authored more than 30 books, many of them jointly written autobiographies of famous Americans in politics, sports and media (including that of Reagan adviser Michael Deaver), Bush and his advisers were sold on the idea that it was difficult for a president to accomplish an electoral agenda without the record-high approval numbers that accompany successful if modest wars.
The revelations on Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged recently during two taped interviews of Herskowitz, which included a discussion of a variety of matters, including his continued closeness with the Bush family, indicated by his subsequent selection to pen an authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published last year with the assistance and blessing of the Bush family.
Herskowitz also revealed the following:
-In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
-Bush admitted that he failed to fulfill his Vietnam-era domestic National Guard service obligation, but claimed that he had been "excused."
- Bush revealed that after he left his Texas National Guard unit in 1972 under murky circumstances, he never piloted a plane again. That casts doubt on the carefully-choreographed moment of Bush emerging in pilot's garb from a jet on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in 2003 to celebrate "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq. The image, instantly telegraphed around the globe, and subsequent hazy White House statements about his capacity in the cockpit, created the impression that a heroic Bush had played a role in landing the craft.
-Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.
Throughout the interviews for this article and in subsequent conversations, Herskowitz indicated he was conflicted over revealing information provided by a family with which he has longtime connections, and by how his candor could comport with the undefined operating principles of the as-told-to genre. Well after the interviews -- in which he expressed consternation that Bush's true views, experience and basic essence had eluded the American people -- Herskowitz communicated growing concern about the consequences for himself of the publication of his remarks, and said that he had been under the impression he would not be quoted by name. However, when conversations began, it was made clear to him that the material was intended for publication and attribution. A tape recorder was present and visible at all times.
Several people who know Herskowitz well addressed his character and the veracity of his recollections. "I don't know anybody that's ever said a bad word about Mickey," said Barry Silverman, a well-known Houston executive and civic figure who worked with him on another book project. An informal survey of Texas journalists turned up uniform confidence that Herskowitz's account as contained in this article could be considered accurate.
One noted Texas journalist who spoke with Herskowitz about the book in 1999 recalls how the author mentioned to him at the time that Bush had revealed things the campaign found embarrassing and did not want in print. He requested anonymity because of the political climate in the state. "I can't go near this," he said.
According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."
Bush's circle of pre-election advisers had a fixation on the political capital that British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher collected from the Falklands War. Said Herskowitz: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches."
Republicans, Herskowitz said, felt that Jimmy Carter's political downfall could be attributed largely to his failure to wage a war. He noted that President Reagan and President Bush's father himself had (besides the narrowly-focused Gulf War I) successfully waged limited wars against tiny opponents - Grenada and Panama - and gained politically. But there were successful small wars, and then there were quagmires, and apparently George H.W. Bush and his son did not see eye to eye.
"I know [Bush senior] would not admit this now, but he was opposed to it. I asked him if he had talked to W about invading Iraq. "He said, 'No I haven't, and I won't, but Brent [Scowcroft] has.' Brent would not have talked to him without the old man's okaying it." Scowcroft, national security adviser in the elder Bush's administration, penned a highly publicized warning to George W. Bush about the perils of an invasion.
Herskowitz's revelations are not the sole indicator of Bush's pre-election thinking on Iraq. In December 1999, some six months after his talks with Herskowitz, Bush surprised veteran political chroniclers, including the Boston Globe's David Nyhan, with his blunt pronouncements about Saddam at a six-way New Hampshire primary event that got little notice: "It was a gaffe-free evening for the rookie front-runner, till he was asked about Saddam's weapons stash," wrote Nyhan. 'I'd take 'em out,' [Bush] grinned cavalierly, 'take out the weapons of mass destructionI'm surprised he's still there," said Bush of the despot who remains in power after losing the Gulf War to Bush Jr.'s fatherIt remains to be seen if that offhand declaration of war was just Texas talk, a sort of locker room braggadocio, or whether it was Bush's first big clinker. "
The notion that President Bush held unrealistic or naïve views about the consequences of war was further advanced recently by a Bush supporter, the evangelist Pat Robertson, who revealed that Bush had told him the Iraq invasion would yield no casualties. In addition, in recent days, high-ranking US military officials have complained that the White House did not provide them with adequate resources for the task at hand.
Herskowitz considers himself a friend of the Bush family, and has been a guest at the family vacation home in Kennebunkport. In the late 1960s, Herskowitz, a longtime Houston Chronicle sports columnist designated President Bush's father, then-Congressman George HW Bush, to replace him as a guest columnist, and the two have remained close since then. (Herskowitz was suspended briefly in April without pay for reusing material from one of his own columns, about legendary UCLA basketball coach John Wooden.)
In 1999, when Herskowitz turned in his chapters for Charge to Keep, Bush's staff expressed displeasure -- often over Herskowitz's use of language provided by Bush himself. In a chapter on the oil business, Herskowitz included Bush's own words to describe the Texan's unprofitable business ventures, writing: "the companies were floundering". "I got a call from one of the campaign lawyers, he was kind of angry, and he said, 'You've got some wrong information.' I didn't bother to say, 'Well you know where it came from.' [The lawyer] said, 'We do not consider that the governor struggled or floundered in the oil business. We consider him a successful oilman who started up at least two new businesses.' "
In the end, campaign officials decided not to go with Herskowitz's account, and, moreover, demanded everything back. "The lawyer called me and said, 'Delete it. Shred it. Just do it.' "
"They took it and [communications director] Karen [Hughes] rewrote it," he said. A campaign official arrived at his home at seven a.m. on a Monday morning and took his notes and computer files. However, Herskowitz, who is known for his memory of anecdotes from his long history in journalism and book publishing, says he is confident about his recollections.
According to Herskowitz, Bush was reluctant to discuss his time in the Texas Air National Guard - and inconsistent when he did so. Bush, he said, provided conflicting explanations of how he came to bypass a waiting list and obtain a coveted Guard slot as a domestic alternative to being sent to Vietnam. Herskowitz also said that Bush told him that after transferring from his Texas Guard unit two-thirds through his six-year military obligation to work on an Alabama political campaign, he did not attend any Alabama National Guard drills at all, because he was "excused." This directly contradicts his public statements that he participated in obligatory training with the Alabama National Guard. Bush's claim to have fulfilled his military duty has been subject to intense scrutiny; he has insisted in the past that he did show up for monthly drills in Alabama - though commanding officers say they never saw him, and no Guardsmen have come forward to accept substantial "rewards" for anyone who can claim to have seen Bush on base.
Herskowitz said he asked Bush if he ever flew a plane again after leaving the Texas Air National Guard in 1972 - which was two years prior to his contractual obligation to fly jets was due to expire. He said Bush told him he never flew any plane - military or civilian - again. That would contradict published accounts in which Bush talks about his days in 1973 working with inner-city children, when he claimed to have taken some of the children up in a plane.
In 2002, three years after he had been pulled off the George W. Bush biography, Herskowitz was asked by Bush's father to write a book about the current president's grandfather, Prescott Bush, after getting a message that the senior Bush wanted to see him. "Former President Bush just handed it to me. We were sitting there one day, and I was visiting him there in his officeHe said, 'I wish somebody would do a book about my dad.' "
"He said to me, 'I know this has been a disappointing time for you, but it's amazing how many times something good will come out of it.' I passed it on to my agent, he jumped all over it. I asked [Bush senior], 'Would you support it and would you give me access to the rest of family?' He said yes."
That book, "Duty, Honor, Country: The Life and Legacy of Prescott Bush," was published in 2003 by Routledge. If anything, the book has been criticized for its over-reliance on the Bush family's perspective and rosy interpretation of events. Herskowitz himself is considered the ultimate "as-told-to" author, lending credibility to his account of what George W. Bush told him. Herskowitz's other books run the gamut of public figures, and include the memoirs of Reagan aide Deaver, former Texas Governor and Nixon Treasury Secretary John Connally, newsman Dan Rather, astronaut Walter Cunningham, and baseball greats Mickey Mantle and Nolan Ryan.
After Herskowitz was pulled from the Bush book project, the biographer learned that a scenario was being prepared to explain his departure. "I got a phone call from someone in the Bush campaign, confidentially, saying 'Watch your back.' "
Reporters covering Bush say that when they inquired as to why Herskowitz was no longer on the project, Hughes intimated that Herskowitz had personal habits that interfered with his writing - a claim Herskowitz said is unfounded. Later, the campaign put out the word that Herskowitz had been removed for missing a deadline. Hughes subsequently finished the book herself - it received largely critical reviews for its self-serving qualities and lack of spontaneity or introspection.
So, said Herskowitz, the best material was left on the cutting room floor, including Bush's true feelings.
"He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake," Herskowitz said. "That was one of the keys to being a leader."
http://
Disclaimer
document.write("Email This Article");
Email This Article MainPagehttp://www.rense.comThis Site Served by TheHostPros
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)