Slaughterhouse Politics

Village Voice: Ranchers Fought Rules That Might Have Prevented Mad Cow

by James Ridgeway

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When it comes to politics you just can't beat the cattlemen for bellyaching. They are forever running around Washington, wanting to pay lower fees for overgrazing the public range or demanding cutbacks in environmental laws that might actually slightly intrude on their operations, and like everyone else under the big Republican tent, babbling on about the wonders of the "free market."

In what will surely rank as cattle ranchers' biggest and stupidest p.r. campaign, some Amarillo ranchers sued Oprah because in 1996 she had Howard Lyman, a former rancher and food activist, as a guest on her show. The ranch owners think Lyman is a dangerous nut. He told Oprah how the beef men were feeding cattle ground up bits and pieces of other cattle, including stuff from sick cows, and warned it was only a matter of time before Mad Cow Disease hit the U.S.

The cattlemen flipped out. Paul Engler, owner of Cactus Feeders Inc. filed suit, claiming that Oprah and Lyman hurt the cattle futures market and charging that they violated a Texas law that forbids "knowingly making false statements" about agricultural business. Claiming a right to free speech, Oprah won, but the beef men nonetheless insisted you could rest assured that Mad Cow could never come to the U.S.

What the cattlemen detest most is the meat inspection system. The story of how Upton Sinclair muckraked the slaughterhouses some one hundred years ago and Teddy Roosevelt jumped in and fixed them all up is pretty much fiction. The simple fact is the meat inspection system isn't any good and anybody who even attempts to stand up to the Big Boy ranchers does so at his or her peril. Look what happened to Bill Lehman, who throughout the early 1990s worked as a meat inspector at Sweetgrass, Montana, a busy port of entry for Canadian beef. By his own count, Lehman himself rejected "up to 2.3 million pounds of contaminated or mislabeled imports annually." The reasons, according to Lehman, included "pus-filled abscesses, sticky layers of bacteria leaving a stench, obvious fecal contamination, stains, metal shavings, blood, bruises, hair, hide, chemical residues, salmonella, added substances, and advanced disease symptoms."

After some children died from an E. coli outbreak in the 90s, Lehman told about his work: "I merely walk to the back of the truck. That's all I'm allowed to do. Whether there's boxed meat or carcasses in the truck, I can't touch the boxes. I can't open the boxes. I can't use a flashlight. I can't walk into the truck. I can only look at what is visible in the back of the trailer." He told one interviewer how he did his inspections: "I've just inspected over 80,000 pounds of meat (boxed beef rounds and boxed boneless beef briskets) on two trucks. I wasn't running or hurrying either. One was bound for Santa Fe Springs, California, the other for San Jose, California. I just stamped on their paperwork 'USDA Inspected and Passed' in 45 seconds."

The revelations by Lehman, who died in 1998, drove the ranchers and their USDA buddies nuts. They said he was a troublemaker and, because he thought free-trade laws made matters worse, a protectionist. He was ordered to retire, face being fired or transfer to another location. He retired, saying he was "just tired of the whole thing." But he fought the USDA until he died.

But Lehman was far from the only critic. "Adequate inspection on the border has been lacking for years, said Mike Callicrate, an outspoken Kansas rancher, especially on the topic of the USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service.

What many people don't understand is how minimal meat inspection is. Here's a typical instance, described by an Iowa farmer: He buys cows or heifers at auction, where they have been certified as having met health requirements -- not because of first-hand inspection but because of the seller's history as a "good guy." The farmer proceeds to feed the cattle corn, sometimes with a vegetable-based additive, and in two years sells them to a feed lot or maybe a local butcher. There is no check on the health of the animals. Approval for sale is again based on the history of the farm. What about sick cows? Say a cow falls down -- he's called a "downer." According to this farmer, a vendor often is called; he'll send a truck to pick up the animal, kill it (if it is still alive), and sell the parts into the meat system. If the farmer spots a sick cow in his herd, he gets rid of it quick as he can. He doesn't go through the rigmarole of testing it through a veterinarian, which takes time and costs money. He just gets rid of the animal and keeps mum about what happened.

Weak laws and weak enforcement are only part of the reason for the slipshod inspection system. It's a fact that farmers and ranchers are under terrific pressure to make a go of it. As Al Krebs, an activist who edits the Ag Biz Examiner, told the Voice, "If dairy farmers were getting a fair price for what they produce, they probably wouldn't feel it necessary to squeeze every last penny out of their herd, such as sending 'downers' off to the marketplace." Dairy farmers in the Seattle-Tacoma area are getting as little as $1 per gallon for their milk when it probably costs about $1.40 to produce that gallon, says Krebs, and the farmers may have to carry a debt of anywhere from $1,500 to $2,000 per cow. But, he points out, consumers in the Seattle-Tacoma area were paying, as of last July, $3.52 per gallon for whole milk, the highest prices anywhere in the nation.

The beef industry is more centralized. The actual economics of beef production are determined not by any free market, but by a highly concentrated industry. Four meatpackers -- IBP, ConAgra, Excel (a subsidiary of Cargill), and National Beef -- control 85 percent of the market. Work in the slaughterhouses can be extremely dangerous, and it's hardly worth it. An investigation by Mother Jones a couple of years ago found that slaughterhouses pay among the lowest wages and have turnover rates so high that every year practically the entire work force has to be hired anew. Most of the workers are illegal immigrants who often don't speak English and can't read.

This screwed-up system does produce the desired results once in a while: Bad meat is found and then recalled. Or is it?

A study by the Center for Public Integrity, a D.C. watchdog group, found that only 43 percent of all meat products recalled by their manufacturers from 1990-1997 was recovered. The rest of the meat -- some 17 million pounds -- was eaten by unsuspecting consumers. Yet Congress fought off efforts by the Secretary of Agriculture during that time to get the authority to issue mandatory recalls of contaminated meat.

The investigation found that during the 1990s the highly exclusive meat business spent $41 million financing political campaigns of Congress members, more than one third of them from House or Senate agriculture committees. Among them: the majority and minority leaders of the Senate (Trent Lott and Tom Daschle), the speaker of the House and the House minority leader (Newt Gingrich and Dick Gephardt), and six past or present chairmen or ranking minority members of the Senate and House agriculture committees.

The cattle industry during that period employed 124 lobbyists to work the Hill, 28 of them previously either lawmakers or aides to lawmakers. And it worked. "During the escalating public health crisis of the past decade," the Center reported, "the food industry has managed to kill every bill that has promised meaningful reform." In lieu of any serious rulemaking, the Clinton administration struck a weak-ass deal with the industry to allow cattlemen to do their own inspections and label their records "trade secrets" so the public can't look at them.

And the problem goes even beyond the threat that contaminated meat poses to public health. Our so-called factory farm system is a major pollutant; massive feedlots foul our water sources around the country. An EPA report from March '98 noted: "Agricultural practices in the United States are estimated to contribute to the impairment of 60 percent of the nation's surveyed rivers and streams; 50 percent of the nation's surveyed lakes, ponds, and reservoirs; and 34 percent of the nation's estuaries."

The late Ed Abbey had it right when he declared, "The rancher -- with a few honorable exceptions?is a man who strings barbed wire all over the range; drills wells and bulldozes stock ponds; drives off elk and antelope and bighorn sheep; poisons coyotes and prairie dogs; shoots eagles, bears, and cougars on sight; supplants the native grasses with tumbleweed, snakeweed, povertyweed, cow shit, anthills, mud, dust, and flies. And then leans back and grins at the TV cameras and talks about how he loves the American West."

William Rivers Pitt: Bush's Worst Enemy

truthout.org

When Ambassador Joseph Wilson speaks of the White House, he tries to take the high road. "It's hard to imagine the government being irrational," he told me over the telephone on Monday afternoon, "and revenge is an irrational act." One breath later, however, Wilson showed why the Bush administration has a great deal to be worried about. "If they thought I was going to go away after they raped my wife," said Wilson, "they were dead wrong."

Wilson best explains who he is in the New York Times editorial he had published on July 6, 2003 entitled 'What I Didn't Find in Africa.' "For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador," wrote Wilson. "In 1990, as charg? d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and S?o Tom? and Pr?ncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me."

July 6, 2003. That's pretty much when the madness began.

Joseph Wilson had been tasked by the CIA, after a request from Vice President Dick Cheney, to travel to Niger and investigate claims that Saddam Hussein had attempted to procure uranium 'yellowcake' from that African nation to develop a nuclear weapons program. He spent several days there in February of 2002 investigating the matter fully, and returned to state flatly that no evidence of such a transaction existed.

"It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," Wilson wrote in his Times editorial. "Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired."

Before Wilson left Niger, he briefed the American ambassador to that country, availing her of findings that matched her own. He returned to the United States and briefed the CIA on his findings, as well as the State Department. In short, he covered all the bases and returned home to his normal life. Later, it was revealed that the "evidence" used to support the claim that such a transaction had taken place was a pile of crudely forged documents.

In January of 2003, George W. Bush used the debunked Niger uranium claims during his State of the Union address to buttress his argument that war in Iraq was necessary. This begat the "16 words" scandal that burned briefly this summer before disappearing with nary a ripple. Why did the President use grossly inadequate intelligence data in such an important speech? Was it a deliberate attempt to mislead the American public, a deliberate attempt to fill them with the fear of terrorist mushroom clouds from Iraq? Or was it an incredible failure on the part of the National Security apparatus that this flawed and forged data made it into the speech? A 'yes' answer to any of these questions was profoundly unacceptable, which was the motivation for Wilson's editorial on July 6th.

The publication of Wilson's editorial brought about a rare day of discomfort for a White House that is normally insulated by a friendly Congress, a subordinate Justice Department, and a tamed media. "The day after I wrote the article," said Wilson on Monday, "the White House said those 16 words shouldn't have been there. For me, that was the end of the story. Others could decide if the White House had deliberately deceived the American people. I'd gotten my answer, and afterwards refused all interviews on the subject, beyond the ones I'd already committed to."

Agents within the Bush administration, most notably Condi Rice and Don Rumsfeld, claimed they had never been informed of the corrupted nature of the Niger evidence. Some days later, CIA Director George Tenet took public responsibility for the fact that those 16 words made it into the State of the Union speech. The CIA, said Tenet, had never told the White House that the Niger evidence was phony.

Amusingly, few people believed what Tenet was trying to sell. First of all, Wilson had informed not only the CIA, but the State Department as well, that the Niger claims were empty. Many people beyond Mr. Tenet had the data, and the standard operating procedure would have such important data climbing a number of administration ladders. Second of all, it was Dick Cheney who asked for the investigation in the first place. Is it reasonable to assume that, after having demanded the investigation, Cheney refused to be briefed on the findings?

A number of intelligence community veterans likewise did not buy what Tenet was trying to sell. I spoke with Andrew Wilkie in those July days when all of this was unfolding. Wilkie is a former senior intelligence analyst for the Office of National Assessments, the senior Australian intelligence agency which provides intelligence assessments to the Australian prime minister. "In the last week in Australia," said Wilkie, "the Defense Intelligence Organization has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and says they didn't tell the Defense Minister. The Australian Department of Foreign Affairs has admitted they had the information on the Niger forgeries and didn't tell the Foreign Minister. The place I used to work, the Office of National Assessments, has admitted publicly that they knew the Niger evidence was fake and didn't tell the Prime Minister about it."

"You've got three intelligence organizations in Australia, the intelligence organizations in the US," continued Wilkie, "and every one is saying they knew this was bad information, but not one political leader reckons they were told. All three organizations have said they didn't give this information to their political leaders. It is unbelievable to the point of fantasy."

Ray McGovern, a 27 year veteran and former senior analyst for the CIA, was likewise unconvinced after Tenet made his dubious confession. "Tenet's confession is designed to take the heat off," said McGovern when I spoke to him in July, "to assign some responsibility somewhere. It's not going to work. There's too much deception here. For example, Condoleezza Rice insisted that she only learned on June 8 about Ambassador Wilson's mission to Niger back in February 2002. That means that neither she nor her staff reads the New York Times, because Nick Kristof on May 6 had a very detailed explication of Wilson's mission to Niger. In my view, it is inconceivable. Her remark this week - that she didn't know about Joe Wilson's mission to Niger until she was asked on a talk show on June 8 - is stretching the truth beyond the breaking point."

This situation, for Wilkie and McGovern, was an interesting case study in the incredible malfeasance of the Bush administration. For Joseph Wilson, however, it became much more personal. Before long, it became about his integrity, and about keeping his wife alive.

"After my editorial came out," said Wilson on Monday, "the President went to Africa. Then White House slimeball press secretary, Ari Fleischer, started spreading rumors that maybe my information wasn't that good, maybe he has some ulterior motives. Cap Weinberger, a lifelong friend of Dick Cheney, wrote an article saying I'd had less than a stellar career. Rather than let bygones be bygones and deal with the issue - the issue being that someone had apparently put lies in the President's mouth - they decided to get the messenger who had said, 'Mr. President, someone put a lie in your mouth.'"

The manner in which the White House decided to "get" the messenger cuts straight to the heart of the integrity of this administration. The Bush administration, in order to silence the politically discomforting Joseph Wilson, along with any other analyst insiders who might speak out about the shady way intelligence surrounding the Iraq invasion was handled, attacked Joseph Wilson's wife.

Wilsons' wife is named Valerie Plame, and she has worked for the CIA for years. Plame is not an analyst or a secretary. Plame is what the CIA calls a NOC, which stands for "non-official cover." A NOC designation means that Valerie Plame was working under such deep cover that she could not be associated with the American intelligence community in any way, shape or form. Plame worked out of a CIA front company called Brewster Jennings & Associates while she performed her service to America's defense. Her service? Valerie Plame ran a clandestine global network designed to track any person, group or nation that might try to deliver weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.

Not long after Wilson's editorial ran in the Times, individuals within the Bush administration cold-called several journalists and informed them that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. One of these calls went to Robert Novak, who wrote about it in his column. "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak on July 14, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction."

This revelation, and the subsequent firestorm that followed, had a number of effects. Most prominently, it annihilated an intelligence network dedicated to keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. It destroyed the viability of Brewster Jennings & Associates as a front company, thus wrecking the work of every other agent who worked from there. It put the lives of Plame's informants within her network in mortal peril; when an agent gets blown, foreign intelligence agencies - especially ones in unfriendly countries - tend to erase the people that agent associated with as a matter of national security. It put Plame's life in peril as well; those same foreign intelligence services would prefer Plame be dead for revealing sensitive data about their activities.

"They couldn't resist letting Novak and those others know my wife worked with CIA," said Wilson on Monday. "Did they know she was a clandestine operator? The number of people in the administration who knew what my wife did for a living is very small. Only those who had means and motive could have done this, someone who has keys to our most precious national security secrets along with a political agenda. It occurred right at that nexus of policy and politics."

Why do this? Agents within the Bush administration destroyed a network dedicated to what is roundly broadcast as this administration's main mission: Keeping weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists. According to the rhetoric, this was why we invaded Iraq.

"I operate from the assumption," said Wilson on Monday, "that the reason for doing this was to discourage others who were talking to press - and there were many - from coming forward more openly. The message was 'Be very careful: Do a Wilson on us, and we will do a Plame on you.' Its one thing to be political and put up with this crap. I'm used to it, after having been around for so long. But it's another thing for an analyst to deal with threats like this. Analysts aren't used to dealing with pressures like this. This act may have discouraged many of them from coming forward. I don't know to be sure, but have been far less insider stories about what we were hearing, stories of Cheney pressuring CIA analysts and the like, than there were a few months ago. There are far fewer unattributed sources talking about it. What they did to my wife was a political act to discourage others from coming forward."

For the record, the United States of America invaded Iraq because the Bush administration spent months terrifying the American people with the specter of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. The record is clear:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, August 26 2002

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons." - George W. Bush, September 12 2002

"If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world." - Ari Fleischer, December 2 2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, January 9 2003

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent." - George W. Bush, State of the Union address, January 28 2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, February 5 2003

"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons." - George Bush, February 8 2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George Bush, March 17 2003

"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the operation, for whatever duration it takes." - Ari Fleischer, March 21 2003

"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who have produced them and who guard them." - Gen. Tommy Franks, March 22 2003

"We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad." - Donald Rumsfeld, March 30 2003.

All of these claims were wrapped around the rhetoric of September 11, making a clear connection for the American people: If we do not invade Iraq and get those weapons, they will be given to terrorists for use against you. This rhetoric is further buttressed by claims on a page on the White House's own website titled 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' That page outlines, in specifics, why Iraq was a threat. The threat: 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas (500 tons = 1,000,000 lbs.), nearly 30,000 munitions to deliver these poisons, and al Qaeda connections just itching to take possession of it all.

In a bit of black comedy, the Niger uranium claims - so thoroughly debunked that America stands ashamed before the world because Bush used them publicly to augment his case for war - still remain on this official White House page. The tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and botulinum toxin, the million pounds of sarin, VX and mustard gas, have thoroughly failed to turn up after nearly a year's worth of occupation and investigation, after almost 500 American soldiers have died, after thousands more have been horribly wounded, to defend America against a threat that did not exist in the first place.

The White House lied. George W. Bush lied. Dick Cheney lied. Don Rumsfeld lied. Ari Fleischer, perhaps predictably, lied. Joseph Wilson called them on just one of their lies, and that same White House reached out and destroyed his wife's career in order to protect itself politically, and to warn any other whistleblowers that public criticism might well amount to complete personal destruction. In doing so, the White House trashed an intelligence network that was working to keep weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of terrorists.

As the New Year approaches, all sorts of retrospectives will be broadcast across the spectrum of television networks. Famous people who died will be remembered, and the most interesting news stories of the year will be rehashed. You'll see Saddam Hussein's capture many times, and you will see his statue toppled in Baghdad many times.

You won't hear about Valerie Plame, or her savaged intelligence network that was protecting you. You won't hear about the missing weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. You won't hear the names, nor see the faces, of the nearly five hundred American soldiers who have died because of the Bush administration's lies. You won't see the ripped flesh or bloody stumps on the thousands of American soldiers who were torn up because of the Bush administration's lies.

All of that happened, however. All those dead and wounded soldiers happened. Valerie Plame happened. Joseph Wilson happened, and he is not finished yet. Not by a long chalk. What would you do if someone attacked your wife?

The Fight ahead

Los Angeles Times: For Howard Dean to Win, He'll Have to Beat Nixon

"Nixon also began a campaign for an anti-civil rights court and in so doing sharpened the division between parties and turned the U.S. Senate into a far meaner place. Lame-duck President Lyndon Johnson had chosen Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be U.S. chief justice. Back in those quaint times, both Republican and Democratic senators recognized the right of the president to have his choice. Fortas had almost overwhelming support from Democrats and Republican leaders. But John Ehrlichman, later Nixon's chief advisor on domestic affairs, worked with Robert Griffin, a GOP senator from Michigan, who got 19 Nixon Republicans to oppose the nomination..."

Don't need truth if a lie suffices

Except for the 'pox on both their houses' apologia ant the bottom, Bookman hits it.

Jay Bookman: Big stories not always tied to truth

"Some of those people -- Woolsey and Safire in particular -- have been around long enough to know better. Their willingness to tout such bogus evidence can only be explained in one of two ways: Their desperation for vindicating evidence is so intense that it has compromised capacity for independent judgment, or they knowingly pushed evidence that they strongly suspected was fake in order to muddy that line between truth and fiction..."

The out-of-work get kicked again by Congress

It's not like the jobless vote or anything. Besides, they're just a bunch of lazy, shiftless bums. Otherwise they'd have jobs, right?

Detroit Free Press: Jobless Cutoffs

"Congress can repair most of the damage when it returns Jan. 20 by reauthorizing one program, Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation. Even so, some families will suffer at least three weeks of disruption. It really is unconscionable that lawmakers took their holiday break without voting to help the jobless..."

Outrage fatique

Washington Post: Alaskan Outrage

"Ted Stevens insists that his advocacy for these projects has nothing to do with his son. But it turns out that Ben Stevens is not the only one benefiting financially from his legislative efforts. A remarkable recent story in the Los Angeles Times detailed the senator's apparent habit of doing legislative favors for those who have been helping him turn modest sums into a considerable personal fortune..."

Return to sanity? Don't hold your breath

New York Times: The Thinning of the Army

"This is the clearest warning yet that the Bush administration is pushing America's peacetime armed forces toward their limits. Washington will not be able to sustain the mismatch between unrealistic White House ambitions and finite Pentagon means much longer without long-term damage to our military strength. The only solution is for the Bush administration to return to foreign policy sanity, starting with a more cooperative, less vindictive approach to European allies who could help share America's military burdens..."

'Conservative' Relativism

St. Petersburg Times: Limbaugh lurches to the left

" Now that the once conservative commentator finds himself on the wrong side of a police investigation, he and his lawyers are accusing prosecutors and other members of the law enforcement community of concocting a vast, politically motivated conspiracy against him.

Not even the most linguini-spined liberal would have the gall to spew such irresponsible nonsense..."

The Big, Green Monster

And the Republican Party is on the wrong side.

Boston Globe: Green energy

"Deb Callahan, the group's president, believes there is an untapped vein of political activism among the 11 million Americans who belong to environmental groups -- almost as many as the 12 million members of the AFL-CIO. "The green giant has been woken up, and he's not very jolly," she says. Callahan plans organizing drives for the 2004 election in Florida, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin -- four traditional swing states where environmental concerns rank high...."

Government of the Corporation, by the Corporation and for the Corporation

No, you cannot undermine the drug industry's obscene profits.

Chicago Tribune: A Canadian prairie fire

" HHS spokesman Bill Pierce said any such move to reimport Canadian drugs would break the law. "Our law is very specific. It's not a `will not.' It's a `cannot..."

Go away, you hippie Deanie

(a la Atrios)

From the inclusive Joe Lieberman Campaign.

Spending like a hooker with a stolen credit card

New York Times: The New Republicans

"The two halves of Republican policy no longer fit together. A political majority that believes in big government for people, and little or no government for corporations, has produced an unsustainable fiscal policy that combines spending on social programs with pork and tax cuts for the rich. Massive budget deficits have been the inevitable result. Something similar happened in the Reagan administration. But unlike Ronald Reagan, Mr. Bush has given no hint of a midcourse adjustment to repair revenue flow. In fact, his Congressional leaders talk of still more tax cuts next year to extend the $1.7 trillion already enacted. That would compound deficits, which could reach $5 trillion in the decade..."

Is it over yet?

Mark Morford: Saddam, So Not Worth It.

Dubya, now that you've got your dime-store thug, can you stop the warmongering and death?

"And now, long after his political usefulness to us has expired, we up and invade his unhappy nation and lay waste to the entire region for no justifiable reason, and we inflate his global stature into this massive inhuman Hitler-esque monster when in fact he was really just an old, tired, small-time thug, and now finally Saddam Hussein, the brutal pip-squeak dictator/former beloved U.S. ally who had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, has been captured alive. Yay yay go team.

It was a proud moment in American history. Almost as proud as when Dubya secretly flew to Iraq a few weeks back to spend 2.5 hours pretending to serve a fake, inedible plastic turkey to that handful of carefully selected, prescreened soldiers for that Thanksgiving PR stunt that will forever embarrass anyone with any sense of decency and pride -- which is, according to Bush's instant surge in the polls after the photo op, fewer and fewer of us..."

The fight ahead

Eric Alterman

"...We've all been to this movie before, of course, just one election ago, and it's therefore no surprise that the anti-Dean media fury has increased exponentially with Al Gore's brave, antiestablishment endorsement. In the meantime, the question of the Democratic nomination has come down to this: Will this election be about turningout your base, or winning over swing voters? Gore did the latter but not the former. He won the election, but, thanks to Ralph Nader's megalomania (with an assist from the SCLM--So-Called Liberal Media--and Gore's own crappy campaign), not by enough to prevent the Supreme Court from handing it to Bush. Today, the nation remains no less divided than four years ago, with about 20 percent of the vote up for grabs. The punditocracy has chosen its side. Perhaps it's time the rest of us choose ours."

Rules to live by

Paul Krugman: New Year's Resolutions

"During the 2000 election, many journalists deluded themselves and their audience into believing that there weren't many policy differences between the major candidates, and focused on personalities (or, rather, perceptions of personalities) instead. This time there can be no illusions: President Bush has turned this country sharply to the right, and this election will determine whether the right's takeover is complete.

But will the coverage of the election reflect its seriousness? Toward that end, I hereby propose some rules for 2004 political reporting..."

Scariness continues

Molly Ivins: Merry Christmas from Dick Cheney

VP holiday greetings make frightening reference to God and empire

"Vice President Cheney's Christmas card this year not only offers best wishes in this holiday season but also bears the following quotation from Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Food for thought there: a heavy meal, in fact..."

Corporate group-think

Chicago Tribune: Is anyone honest anymore?

" Menschel attributes this kind of moral equivocation to group-think behavior: What's unthinkable to most individuals becomes acceptable when everybody else is doing the same. "In a crowd," he writes, "individual will can weaken. . . . The larger the crowd, and the more forcefully led it is, the easier it is to abandon individual will, and the greater becomes the collective power of our separate compromises..."

Bait and Switch

Robert Kuttner: 'Ownership Society' Another Sleight of Hand

"Take a closer look, however, and you will recognize the trademarked Bush combination of inspiring themes coupled with a complete absence of useful tools. In other words, "bait and switch."

Other recent examples include the No Child Left Behind education reform law (millions were), the Medicare drug bill (covers less than you'd think and mainly subsidizes drug companies) and three rounds of huge tax breaks that went mostly to the wealthy..."

The evils of gerrymandering

Yes, Virginia, everyone does it and it's gone on in the past, but the use of modern technology has taken it from a imprecise art to a exact science and it's modern implementation is destroying the democratic process. Republicans should wake up to the fact that NO ONE can stay on top forever and the rules they break today will be used against them tomorrow. Count on it.

Findlaw's Writ: The Supreme Court Considers Sophisticated Political Gerrymandering

Are Voting Rights Preserved If Boundaries are Drawn to Ensure Particular Election Outcomes?

" The need to run for re-election is meant to keep the incumbent honest, and responsive to voter needs. When re-election is improperly guaranteed, the way is opened even further for corruption and for capture by special interests. Proponents of campaign finance reform are concerned about these problems -- but even if they were to succeed in all their efforts, gerrymandering might still allow these evils into Congress, through another door..."

Posted by fightingdem at 10:09 AM

A woman of substance

Mary Lynn Jones: The Incomparable Judy Steinberg Dean

"...So far, Howard Dean has gone from an insurgent candidate to the front-runner without his wife's help. And he's made clear that he supports her decision to keep her day job. He expects her to do the same even if he wins next November. As he told the Associated Press, his wife would be "a real role model for America ? a woman who doesn't depend on her husband's career, and that's a majority of women these days.""

Not un-ethical if there are no ethics

New York Times: Senate Ethics and 'Stevens Money'

"It is hard to argue that Mr. Stevens is breaking any Senate rules, for, stunningly, there is no explicit ban on a senator's engaging in profitable dealings with businesses and individuals who benefit from the lawmaker's official actions. There is only an amorphous criterion against behavior that brings "shame" upon the Senate. So far, the Ethics Committee has offered no hint as to whether the senator's home-state dealings merit official shame and sanction..."

What we fight for

Randolph T. Holhut: What we must fight for in 2004

"But Roosevelt's New Deal proved that government can make a difference in people's lives. It reduced poverty through programs such as Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children. It created public works programs that not only provided jobs for the unemployed but built bridges, roads, dams and other public facilities that are still in use today. It created the eight-hour work day, the 40-hour work week and the minimum wage. It gave labor unions the right to organize. It helped stabilize farm prices and reclaim farm land ravaged by erosion and overuse..."

The Radicals vs. the Mainstream

Guess who is who?

Howard Dean: Out of the Mainstream? Hardly

The Post's Dec. 18 editorial discussing my recent foreign policy speech ["Beyond the Mainstream"] badly misrepresents both my position and the central argument in the coming election on how best to strengthen America's security.

To start: The Post repeatedly misstates my views. For example, I support missile defense efforts that make us more secure; I oppose deployment of any system not yet proven to work. I favor active talks with North Korea, backed by the threat of force, rather than a stubborn refusal to engage that has allowed the situation to become more dangerous by the day. And the role I support for the National Guard is hardly "radical"; it was endorsed by the bipartisan Hart-Rudman commission and in fact is enshrined in our Constitution (Section 8, Clause 15).

More important, The Post's editorial comes close to equating the Bush administration's foreign policy -- including its signature doctrine of "preemptive war" -- with the American foreign policy mainstream. In fact, the Bush agenda represents a radical departure from decades of bipartisan consensus on the appropriate use of U.S. power and our leadership in the world community.

From its derisive treatment of allies to its rejection of important global agreements, this administration has favored a go-it-alone approach and a determination to use force as its weapon of first resort. Its approach has alienated friends and bolstered foes. Its agenda isolates the United States, placing responsibility for all the world's problems in our hands, and runs counter to America's traditions as a republic.

By contrast, my national security policy reflects the best of our mainstream tradition. I believe the United States must exercise leadership by working with allies and partners to advance common interests, rather than advancing our power unilaterally.

My program is clear. First, we must strengthen our military and intelligence, ensure that our troops have the best training and equipment and keep our promises about pay and benefits.

Second, we must rebuild our alliances, badly damaged by the current administration. Every president since World War II, until now, has worked effectively with our allies and partners, because each believed this was the best way to safeguard security. Established alliances, which train and plan together over decades, are better at waging combat and building peace than makeshift coalitions of the willing.

Third, we must make our top priorities defeating the terrorists who have attacked America and preventing the most deadly weapons of all -- nuclear, chemical and biological -- from falling into their hands. We must bolster these priorities with improved Special Forces, better intelligence coordination and dramatically enhanced homeland security.

We need a global alliance to defeat terrorism that will draw on the strengths of allies and partners to destroy terrorist networks. And I will build, with our allies, a $60 billion global fund to combat weapons of mass destruction.

Fourth, advancing American interests requires greater engagement with developing nations on investment, trade, aid and public health.

This is a national security policy that honors the best of America's traditions. It is a clear contrast to a policy centered on the misguided doctrine of unilateral preemption.

The reasons I opposed the war in Iraq are clear. In the fall of 2002, Saddam Hussein did not pose an imminent threat to America. The administration had not (and still has not) presented clear evidence that Hussein was on the verge of attacking his neighbors or threatening the United States or the Middle East with weapons of mass destruction or supporting al Qaeda. The administration's failures to mobilize allies and plan effectively for the war's aftermath suggested difficulties ahead.

It is just as important that this president failed to level with the American people about the costs or potential consequences or about the nature of the threat. Our democratic tradition, our mainstream values, demand that government be open and honest with its governed. The consequences of the war are becoming clear, even beyond the loss of life, even beyond the $150 billion price tag -- so far. Our resources -- military, intelligence, diplomatic -- are strained. Our alliances are frayed. Around the world, too many are now under the false impression that the American people are bent on global domination and war against Islam.

A critical presidential campaign is now underway. Americans face a choice between two very different views of our role in the world. My agenda returns security policy to its fundamental course: protecting Americans and advancing our values and interests -- democracy, freedom, opportunity and peace -- through effective partnerships and global leadership, as well as military strength.

The current administration strays wildly from this course and from the time-honored manner of pursuing it. In the end, I believe it will be clear who is in the mainstream and who is swimming against the tide of history.

Bush and the Administration are the 'bad news kids'

Paul Krugman: Telling It Right

"This is a very, very important part of history, and we've got to tell it right." So says Thomas Kean, chairman of the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Kean promises major revelations in testimony next month: "This was not something that had to happen." We'll see: maybe those of us who expected the 9/11 commission to produce yet another whitewash were wrong. Meanwhile, one can only echo his sentiment: it's important to tell our history right, not just about the events that led up to 9/11, but about the events that followed..."

The capture of Saddam has NOT made us safer

Minneapolis Star-Tribune: Dean's truth/Saddam didn't threaten U.S.

"We don't have a dog in the Democratic presidential fight, but we do know that front-runner Howard Dean, like him or not, is getting beaten up unfairly for telling an unpleasant truth: The capture of Saddam Hussein hasn't made America safer. It was an excellent piece of work, it may make Iraqis safer, and it may help protect American forces in Iraq. But the capture does nothing directly to secure the United States from the danger posed by terrorism.

That's because the war on terrorism has nothing to do with Iraq. Saddam was an ogre who can legitimately be charged with crimes against humanity, genocide and assorted other nasty behaviors. But there's no evidence he was an international terrorist, and that's not likely to change no matter how many times the Bush administration says it knows he was..."

Truth-telling

Normon Solomon: A truth-teller suffers consequences

"Gun, who is free on bail and is to appear in court Jan. 19, has responded with measured eloquence. Disclosure of the NSA memo, she said Nov. 27, was "necessary to prevent an illegal war in which thousands of Iraqi civilians and British soldiers would be killed or maimed." And Gun reiterated something that she had said two weeks earlier: "I have only ever followed my conscience..."

Please, let's stop calling it 'journalism'

tompaine.com: Soft News

" If there was once a time when Diane Sawyer was a serious journalist -- and for the sake of argument, let us say there was -- it is officially over, as Tuesday night's interview with President Bush showed.

Given what was surely one of the sweetest plums in journalism, the chance to interview a president just days after the capture of the dictator he has overthrown, Sawyer couldn't decide whether she wanted to be Walter Cronkite or Oprah Winfrey. Torn between pressing Bush on Iraq and probing for a touchy-feely soundbite, she came across as uncertain, unprepared and painfully unspontaneous, and in so doing achieved the unusual feat of making President Bush sound verbally dexterous..."

Bush's fake war on terror

Sidle up to the bar, boys, the no-bid contracts are on me.

William Pfaff: Saddam's Capture Bodes Ill for Bush's Re-election

"If questioning Saddam Hussein doesn't produce the famous weapons of mass destruction that were threatening Jerusalem, and British and American bases in the region - not to mention New York and Washington - the question of what the war was all about is reopened.

The failure to get new information will confirm what so far has been the unanimous testimony of Iraqi scientists and officials, who no longer have any reason to lie and every reason to tell the truth: The weapons programs were all terminated after the first Gulf War. Washington, significantly, had already let the issue of weapons of mass destruction drop even before Saddam's capture..."

Getting back to the real war on terror

Dave Zweifel: War on terror far from being won

"Hopefully, the gloating over capturing Saddam Hussein is over and we can get back to fighting the real war against terror.

That real war didn't include Iraq, but the Bush administration, in one of history's biggest scams, talked America into believing it did. Saddam and his weapons of mass destruction and his support of terrorism were going to get us, we were told..."

Behind closed doors

John W. Dean: The Ominous Omnibus Appropriations Bill
Why Senators Daschle and Byrd Were Right to Decry The Lowdown, Dirty Tactics That Led to It

" In Article I of our Constitution, the legislative branch is listed as the first branch of government. That was neither accident nor chance. In a nation where the people are sovereign, their collective representation in the United States Congress is the heart and core of our system. In light of this basic truth, it pains me to see what is happening in Congress today.

Friends working on the Capitol Hill, and doing business there, have been telling me for months they have never seen it so bad. More than ever, business is being done behind closed doors, and dubious deal making -- you give me this and I'll vote for that sort of arrangements -- is going on. Members of Congress are using one legislative ploy after another to write laws for the few, at the expense of the many, and much of it has been proceeding unnoticed by anyone -- especially the press.

Before the Senate adjourned, Democratic Senators Tom Daschle and Robert Byrd went to the Senate floor, and blew the whistle, demanding a stop to these corrupt procedures. They have called public attention to these offensive tactics, refusing to countenance Republicans' (at the behest of the White House) flouting the legislative process..."

Pandering, as usual

Alternet: Taiwan: Dean's Window of Opportunity

"Bush's approach to the problem is to pander to China's authoritarian government, essentially telling Chinese leaders that their fantasy of incorporating Taiwan into China will inevitably come true..."

Ashcroft, Bush and the Constitution

tompaine.com:Above the Law

" Documents just released by the Federal Election Commission show that Attorney General John Ashcroft engaged in serious campaign finance violations during his 2000 Senate campaign.

Ashcroft participated in a patently phony deal that allowed a political action committee he founded and controlled to transfer a highly valuable mailing list to his campaign committee. The donation of the list?which cost more than $1.7 million to create?flaunts campaign contribution limits.

Yet a divided FEC just winked at the arrangement, slapped the committees with a small penalty, and let Ashcroft himself off scot-free. This leaves it up to the federal courts to force the FEC to do its job, and the Justice Department should also appoint a special prosecutor to conduct a criminal inquiry..."

Newsday:Let Padilla Go

" Tossing a legal hot potato in the direction of Congress, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday that the president has no unilateral authority to detain as an enemy combatant an American citizen seized on American soil..."

Mercury News: Civil liberties, 3, attorney general, 0

"It was a bad day to be Attorney General John Ashcroft. His tactics got an overdue rebuke Thursday, reinforcing America's underlying commitment to civil liberties, even as we respond to terror's threats..."

Good Neighbors

Los Angeles Times: It's Guilt by Association When the Neighbors Meet

"Harvey Rowe presented a draft resolution condemning his next-door neighbors, Brian and Jane Johnson, for installing outdoor lights in their garden. Considerable discussion ensued, during which it was determined that the Johnsons' lights were not visible if you didn't climb over their fence and then crawl underneath some thick ficus. However, Lena Rowe reminded the board that the Johnsons did not first seek the required approval of the Neighborhood Outdoor Lighting Committee. Mr. Rowe offered to hire some men to enter the Johnsons' garden at night, remove the offending lights and perhaps even "rough up Brian a little." This suggestion was voted down 6 to 5 with three abstentions..."

Honest discourse

Co-conspirators

Joe Conason: Who will testify at Saddam's trial?

Hussein defense could shame a parade of American executives

President George W. Bush and the provisional Iraqi authorities have promised that before Saddam Hussein is executed, he will most certainly receive a fair trial. Conveniently enough, the Iraqis set up a war-crimes tribunal in Baghdad for this purpose just last week. So sometime after Saddam's Army interrogators are finished sweating the old monster, the preparations shall begin for what promises to be a courtroom spectacular.

Advocates of human rights and international law hope that the prosecution of Saddam will improve somewhat upon his regime's standard of criminal justice, which generally entailed horrific torture followed by confession and punishment. They have urged that Saddam's trial be conducted with complete fairness and transparency. Ahmed Chalabi, the Pentagon's favorite member of the Iraqi Governing Council, says that Saddam must be afforded the lawful treatment he denied his victims.

Those laudable aims presumably require that he be permitted to defend himself legally, no matter how indefensible he actually is. Human Rights Watch, which demanded action against Iraqi atrocities before such concerns became fashionable in Washington, now insists that the captured dictator "must be allowed to conduct a vigorous defense that includes the right to legal counsel at an early stage."

Apart from blaming his underlings for the genocidal crimes on his indictment, what defense can he (or his lawyers) offer? Following in the style of Slobodan Milosevic, he may well wish to spend his final days on the public stage bringing shame to those who brought him down.

Unfortunately, it isn't hard to imagine how he might accomplish that if he can call witnesses and subpoena documents.

Charged with the use of poison gas against Kurds and Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, Saddam could summon a long list of Reagan and Bush administration officials who ignored or excused those atrocities when they were occurring.

An obvious prospective witness is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who acted as a special envoy to Baghdad during the early 1980's. On a courtroom easel, Saddam might display the famous December 1983 photograph of him shaking hands with Mr. Rumsfeld, who acknowledges that the United States knew Iraq was using chemical weapons. If his forces were using Tabun, mustard gas and other forbidden poisons, he might ask, why did Washington restore diplomatic relations with Baghdad in November 1984?

As for his horrendous persecution of the Kurds in 1988, Saddam could call executives from the banks and defense and pharmaceutical companies from various countries that sold him the equipment and materials he is alleged to have used. He might put former President George Herbert Walker Bush on the witness stand and ask, "Why did your administration and Ronald Reagan's sell my government biological toxins such as anthrax and botulism, as well as poisonous chemicals and helicopters?"

Saddam could also subpoena Henry Kissinger, whose consulting firm's chief economist ventured to Baghdad in June 1989 to advise the Iraqi government on restructuring its debt. "After my forces allegedly murdered thousands of Kurdish civilians in 1988," he might inquire, "why would you and other American businessmen want to help me refinance and rearm my government?"

Indeed, Saddam could conceivably seek the testimony of dozens of men and women who once served in the Reagan and Bush administrations, starting with former Secretary of State George Shultz, and ask them to explain why they opposed every Congressional effort to place sanctions on his government, up until the moment his army invaded Kuwait during the summer of 1990. Pursuing the same general theme, he might call Vice President Dick Cheney, who sought to remove sanctions against Iraq when he served as the chief executive of Halliburton Corp.

The long, shadowy history of American relations with Saddam would be illuminated not only through witness testimony but literally thousands of documents in U.S. government files. Memos uncovered by the National Security Archive show that Reagan and Bush administration officials knew exactly how the Iraqi government was procuring what it needed to build weapons of mass destruction, including equipment intended for construction of a nuclear arsenal.

From time to time, during those crucial years when Saddam consolidated his power and prepared for war, U.S. diplomats issued rote condemnations of his worst actions. Then, as the record shows, they would privately reassure Saddam that the United States still desired close and productive relations. The other governments that were Saddam's accomplices include both opponents and supporters of this administration's pre-emptive war -- from France, Germany and Russia, to Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.

Pertinent as these issues are to Saddam's case, they do not mitigate his record of murder and corruption. And the man dragged from his pathetic hideout near Tikrit hardly seems to possess the will or the capability to raise them. Either way, he will get what he deserves. Yet it will be hard to boast that justice and history have been fully served if his foreign accomplices escape their share of opprobrium.

Graceful

Alternet: Dean's Foreign Policy: I Am No George Bush

"But Dean's speech, along with his signature opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, revealed him as the best Democratic alternative to Bush, while sustaining his bona fides as a progressive..."

Democrats are better than this

New York Times: The Face of Scare Politics

"Let's hope that this week will mark both the beginning and the end of the use of Osama bin Laden as a prop in political campaign commercials. The current TV ad starring the most infamous face in terrorism is part of a "stop Howard Dean" movement from his fellow Democrats. Perhaps the true originators -- whose identities are as murky as Qaeda operatives' ? can be persuaded to cease and desist as a holiday present to the people of New Hampshire and South Carolina..."

Under their rock

New York Times: New Democratic Group Finances a Republican-like Attack on Dean

"Whoever is behind this should crawl out from underneath their rock and have the courage to say who they are," said Tricia Enright, a spokeswoman for Dr. Dean. "It is hateful, it's cynical, it's exactly the kind of ad that keeps people from voting, that keeps people from getting involved in the process..."

War Profiteering: Raison d'etre

Why do you think they stole the election? To balance the budget?

Paul Krugman: Patriots and Profits

"The point is that we've had an environment in which officials inclined to do favors for their business friends, and contractors inclined to pad their bills or do shoddy work, didn't have to worry much about being exposed. Human nature being what it is, then, the odds are that the troubling stories that have come to light aren't isolated examples.

Some Americans still seem to feel that even suggesting the possibility of profiteering is somehow unpatriotic. They should learn the story of Harry Truman, a congressman who rose to prominence during World War II by leading a campaign against profiteering. Truman believed, correctly, that he was serving his country..."

Mopping up

Christopher Scheer: Hussein's Capture Is Yesterday's News

"As far as I can tell, catching Saddam is not going to fix Iraq's economy, build a functioning democracy, prevent a Sunni-Shiite civil war, or bring back the Americans and Iraqis who have died and will continue to die at the checkpoints, home invasions and while driving their Humvees down the nation's roads. Humiliating Hussein with public dental examinations will hopefully reassure some Iraqis that peace is on the way, but while it would be nice if his old cronies who may be involved in the insurgency would lay down their arms, I wouldn't hold my breath..."

Will he rat out his friends?

It's not only Saddam's former allies in previous Republican administrations, but the French, Germans, etc. who have a lot to lose if Saddam starts singing. Don't expect any big revelations from a fair trial.

tompaine.com: The Problem Prisoner

"First, Saddam?s capture will present a significant political problem for Bush & Co. All by himself, Saddam can unravel the supposed mystery of Iraq?s missing weapons of mass destruction. Call him a liar, but on this subject he can tell the truth. Iraq?s WMD were virtually extinguished in 1991, and lingering remnants dealt with by UN inspectors in the early '90s. Already, according to Time, Saddam in captivity ridiculed the WMD issue. ?Saddam was... asked whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction,? reported Time. "?No, of course not,? he replied, according to [a U.S.] official, ?the U.S. dreamed them up itself to have a reason to go to war with us.?" In coming weeks, unless the United States manages to muzzle Saddam and suppress leaks -- not likely -- Saddam can highlight Bush?s prevarications on WMD and terrorism..."

Robert Scheer:We Got Him ... Now What?

"The onus is on the United States to accord this former ally and head of state all the rights due a high-level prisoner of war, as established at Nuremberg and The Hague. His testimony in open court could prove fascinating if he is allowed to detail his past relationships with top U.S. officials -- including the president's father and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who worked out terms of cooperation with Hussein in 1983...."

UK/Globe and Mail: The Game's Not Over

"Yet even in abject humiliation, Saddam Hussein remains a problem. It's not clear what kind of show trial the United States and its hand-picked Iraqi government will agree on. But you can bet that intense discussions are under way in an effort to figure out how to orchestrate the appearance of justice without causing acute embarrassment to the wrong people..."

Humiliating Captives

USA Today: Humiliating photos could backfire in Islamic world

"Still, such a disrespectful display in a society that highly values personal dignity may generate sympathy for Saddam and disgust with us, as happened after the grotesque display of the bodies of his sons, Qusay and Uday. (And, in fact, the violence against our troops increased after their deaths.) When contrasted with the end of his sons, who fought overwhelming coalition forces to the death, how could Saddam, ignominiously captured without a struggle, appear any more weakened than he already was?.."

This is sweet

Support your troops

Stomach pumps for all.

Taipei Times: Contractor (Halliburton) served troops dirty food in dirty kitchens

The Pentagon repeatedly warned contractor Halliburton-KBR that the food it served to US troops in Iraq was "dirty," as were as the kitchens it was served in, NBC News reported on Friday.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root's promises to improve "have not been followed through," according to a Pentagon report that warned "serious repercussions may result" if the contractor did not clean up.

The Pentagon reported finding "blood all over the floor," "dirty pans," "dirty grills," "dirty salad bars" and "rotting meats ... and vegetables" in four of the military messes the company operates in Iraq, NBC said, citing Pentagon documents.

The report came as President George W. Bush fended off Pentagon reports that Halliburton-KBR overcharged US$61 million for gasoline it sold the military in Iraq. Dick Cheney ran Halliburton for five years until becoming vice president.

The company feeds 110,000 US and coalition troops daily at a cost of US$28 per troop per day, NBC said.

The Pentagon found unclean conditions at four locations in Iraq, including one in Baghdad and two in Tikrit. Even the mess hall where Bush served troops their Thanksgiving dinner was dirty in August, September and October, according to NBC.

This adds up to "a company that arrogantly is overcharging when they can get away with it and not providing the quality of service that they agreed to do," Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, told NBC.

Halliburton-Kellogg Brown and Root told NBC that "hostile conditions" pose special challenges as they served the 21 million meals so far to the troops at 45 sites in Iraq.

"We have taken quick action to improve," the company said.

William Rivers Pitt

William Rivers Pitt: We caught the wrong guy

Saddam Hussein, former employee of the American federal government, was captured near a farmhouse in Tikrit in a raid performed by other employees of the American federal government. That sounds pretty deranged, right? Perhaps, but it is also accurate. The unifying thread binding together everyone assembled at that Tikrit farmhouse is the simple fact that all of them -- the soldiers as well as Hussein -- have received pay from the United States for services rendered.

It is no small irony that Hussein, the Butcher of Baghdad, the monster under your bed lo these last 12 years, was paid probably ten thousand times more during his time as an American employee than the soldiers who caught him on Saturday night. The boys in the Reagan White House were generous with your tax dollars, and Hussein was a recipient of their largesse for the better part of a decade.

If this were a Tom Clancy movie, we would be watching the dramatic capture of Hussein somewhere in the last 10 minutes of the tale. The bedraggled dictator would be put on public trial for his crimes, sentenced to several thousand concurrent life sentences, and dragged off to prison in chains. The anti-American insurgents in Iraq, seeing the sudden futility of their fight to place Hussein back into power, would lay down their arms and melt back into the countryside. For dramatic effect, more than a few would be cornered by SEAL teams in black facepaint and discreetly shot in the back of the head. The president would speak with eloquence as the martial score swelled around him. Fade to black, roll credits, get off my plane.

The real-world version is certainly not lacking in drama. The streets of Baghdad were thronged on Sunday with mobs of Iraqi people celebrating the final removal of a despot who had haunted their lives since 1979. Their joy was utterly unfettered. Images on CNN of Hussein, looking for all the world like a Muslim version of Charles Manson while getting checked for head lice by an American medic, were as surreal as anything one might ever see on a television.

Unfortunately, the real-world script has a lot of pages left to be turned. Former United Nations weapons inspector Scott Ritter, reached at his home on Sunday, said, "It's great that they caught him. The man was a brutal dictator who committed terrible crimes against his people. But now we come to rest of story. We didn't go to war to capture Saddam Hussein. We went to war to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Those weapons have not been found." Ray McGovern, senior analyst and 27-year veteran of the CIA, echoed Ritter's perspective on Sunday. "It's wonderful that he was captured, because now we'll find out where the weapons of mass destruction are," said McGovern, with tongue firmly planted in cheek. "We killed his sons before they could tell us."

Indeed, reality intrudes. The push for war before March was based upon Hussein's possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 1,000,000 pounds of sarin gas, mustard gas, and VX nerve gas, along with 30,000 munitions to deliver these agents and uranium from Niger to be used in nuclear bombs. And let us not forget the Al Qaeda terrorists closely associated with Hussein who would take this stuff and use it against us on the main streets and back roads of the United States.

When they found Hussein hiding in that dirt hole in the ground, none of this stuff was down there with him. The full force of the American military has been likewise unable to locate it anywhere else. There is no evidence of Al Qaeda agents working with Hussein, and Bush was forced some weeks ago to publicly acknowledge that Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The Niger uranium story was debunked last summer.

Conventional wisdom now holds that none of this stuff was there to begin with, and all the clear statements from virtually everyone in the Bush administration squatting on the public record describing the existence of this stuff looks now like what it was then: A lot of overblown rhetoric and outright lies, designed to terrify the American people into supporting an unnecessary go-it-alone war. Said war made a few Bush cronies rich beyond the dreams of avarice while allowing some hawks in the Defense Department to play at empire-building, something they have been craving for more than 10 years.

Of course, the rhetoric mutated as the weapons stubbornly refused to be found. By the time Bush did his little 'Mission Accomplished' strut across the aircraft carrier, the occupation was about the removal of Saddam Hussein and the liberation of the Iraqi people. No longer were we informed on a daily basis of the "sinister nexus between Hussein and Al Qaeda," as described by Colin Powell before the United Nations in February. No longer were we fed the insinuations that Hussein was involved in the attacks of 9/11. Certainly, any and all mention of weapons of mass destruction ceased completely. We were, instead, embarking on some noble democratic experiment.

The capture of Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqis dancing in the streets of Baghdad, feeds nicely into these newly-minted explanations. Mr. Bush and his people will use this as the propaganda coup it is, and to great effect. But a poet once said something about tomorrow, and tomorrow and tomorrow.

"We are not fighting for Saddam," said an Iraqi named Kashid Ahmad Saleh in a New York Times report from a week ago. "We are fighting for freedom and because the Americans are Jews. The Governing Council is a bunch of looters and criminals and mercenaries. We cannot expect that stability in this country will ever come from them. The principle is based on religion and tribal loyalties," continued Saleh. "The religious principle is that we cannot accept to live with infidels. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be on him, said, `Hit the infidels wherever you find them.' We are also a tribal people. We cannot allow strangers to rule over us."

Welcome to the new Iraq. The theme that the 455 Americans killed there, and the thousands of others who have been wounded, fell at the hands of pro-Hussein loyalists is now gone. The Bush administration celebrations over this capture will appear quite silly and premature when the dying continues. Whatever Hussein bitter-enders there are will be joined by Iraqi nationalists who will now see no good reason for American forces to remain. After all, the new rhetoric highlighted the removal of Hussein as the reason for this invasion, and that task has been completed. Yet American forces are not leaving, and will not leave. The killing of our troops will continue because of people like Kashid Ahmad Saleh. All Hussein's capture did for Saleh was remove from the table the idea that he was fighting for the dictator. He is free now, and the war will begin in earnest.

The dying will continue because America's presence in Iraq is a wonderful opportunity for a man named Osama bin Laden, who was not captured on Saturday. Bin Laden, it has been reported, is thrilled by what is happening in Iraq, and plans to throw as much violence as he can muster at American forces there. The Bush administration spent hundreds of billions of dollars on this Iraq invasion, not one dime of which went towards the capture or death of the fellow who brought down the Towers a couple of years ago. For bin Laden and his devotees, Iraq is better than Disneyland.

For all the pomp and circumstance that has surrounded the extraction of the former Iraqi dictator from a hole in the ground, the reality is that the United States is not one bit safer now that the man is in chains.

There will be no trial for Hussein, at least nothing in public, because he might start shouting about the back pay he is owed from his days as an employee of the American government. Because another former employee of the American government named Osama is still alive and free, our troops are still in mortal danger in Iraq.

Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His capture means nothing to the safety and security of the American people. The money we spent to put the bag on him might have gone towards capturing bin Laden, who is a threat, but that did not happen. We can be happy for the people of Iraq, because their Hussein problem is over. Here in America, our Hussein problem is just beginning. The other problem, that Osama fellow we should have been trying to capture this whole time, remains perched over our door like the raven.

Right-wing terrorists

Last I heard, there were no "left-wing" terrorist cells operating in the United States. Must be a liberal plot to make the Republicans look bad. (P.S. Thanks Atrios)

New York Times: Our Enemies at Home

"An isolated incident involving a few Americans on the far-right fringe? Most people probably assume so, but federal authorities served more than 150 subpeonas in the case, and are still searching for others who may have been involved.

The Noonday case shows just how serious a threat we face from domestic terrorists. Consider this year's other high-profile incident involving rightist causes: the arrest of Eric Rudolph, accused of bombing abortion clinics and the 1996 Olympics. During his five years in the wilderness, he was often viewed by the public and press as a lone fugitive. But law enforcement officials have linked him to two national movements: the Army of God, a biblically inspired underground network of anti-abortion extremists; and the Christian Identity movement, whose members believe that Jews are the literal children of Satan, nonwhites are sub-human, and that Anglo-Saxon Christians are the true descendants of the lost tribes of Israel.

The examples keep coming. James Kopp, who was found guilty earlier this year in the 1998 shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in Buffalo was also affiliated with the Army of God. Matthew Hale, leader of the World Church of the Creator, a white-supremacist group, was arrested in January in Chicago on charges of soliciting the murder of a federal judge. In February, federal officials arrested Rafael Davila, a former Army National Guard intelligence officer from Washington State; they say Mr. Davila and his former wife planned to distribute highly classified documents to white supremacists and antigovernment groups in North Carolina, Texas and Georgia..."

Prosecutorial Misconduct

New York Times: Captain Yee's Ordeal

"The military's mean-spirited and incompetent prosecution of Capt. James Yee, the former Muslim chaplain at Guantanamo Bay, illustrates the danger of allowing the war on terrorism to trump basic rights. After holding Captain Yee in solitary confinement for nearly three months, and smearing him with adultery and pornography charges, the military is now uncertain whether the documents whose confidentiality he is charged with breaching were even confidential. In the interest of justice, and of resurrecting their own reputation, military prosecutors should drop the case..."

Godlike Bush catches Saddam single handed!

Hallelujah! Saddam Caught!

Global Warming reversed!
Economy rebounds!
Massive jobs loss reversal!
Global terrorist threat disappears!
Liberals commit mass suicide!
Foreigners genuflect before manly Bush!
Democratic candidates retire from presidential race, recognize Bush's godlike qualities!

Hundreds of U.S. troops and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians are dead and billions poured down the rabbit hole but it was well worth it now that we "Caught Saddam!"(TM).

"Caught Saddam!" is a register trademark (TM) of the Republican Party and George W. Bush. Any use without the express permission of the trademark owners is forbidden. Under penalty of imprisonment, without benefit of a lawyer or legal recourse, in the Guantanamo tiger cage of their choice.

Republican Fifth Column

Paul Krugman: A Deliberate Debacle

James Baker sets off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with our estranged allies. And at that very moment the deputy secretary of defense releases a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language. What's going on?

Maybe I'm giving Paul Wolfowitz too much credit, but I don't think this was mere incompetence. I think the administration's hard-liners are deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.

Surely this wasn't just about reserving contracts for administration cronies. Yes, Halliburton is profiteering in Iraq -- will apologists finally concede the point, now that a Pentagon audit finds overcharging? And reports suggest a scandal in Bechtel's vaunted school-repair program.

But I've always found claims that profiteering was the motive for the Iraq war -- as opposed to a fringe benefit -- as implausible as claims that the war was about fighting terrorism. There are deeper motives here.

Mr. Wolfowitz's official rationale for the contract policy is astonishingly cynical: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international cooperation in Iraq and in future efforts" -- future efforts? -- and "should encourage the continued cooperation of coalition members." Translation: we can bribe other nations to send troops.

But I doubt whether even Mr. Wolfowitz believes that. The last year, from the failure to get U.N. approval for the war to the retreat over the steel tariff, has been one long lesson in the limits of U.S. economic leverage. Mr. Wolfowitz knows as well as the rest of us that allies who could really provide useful help won't be swayed by a few lucrative contracts.

If the contracts don't provide useful leverage, however, why torpedo a potential reconciliation between America and its allies? Perhaps because Mr. Wolfowitz's faction doesn't want such a reconciliation.

These are tough times for the architects of the "Bush doctrine" of unilateralism and preventive war. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and their fellow Project for a New American Century alumni viewed Iraq as a pilot project, one that would validate their views and clear the way for further regime changes. (Hence Mr. Wolfowitz's line about "future efforts.")

Instead, the venture has turned sour -- and many insiders see Mr. Baker's mission as part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hard-liners' clutches. If the mission collapses amid acrimony over contracts, that's a good thing from the hard-liners' point of view.

Bear in mind that there is plenty of evidence of policy freebooting by administration hawks, such as the clandestine meetings last summer between Pentagon officials working for Douglas Feith, under secretary of defense for policy and planning -- and a key player in the misrepresentation of the Iraqi threat -- and Iranians of dubious repute. Remember also that blowups by the hard-liners, just when the conciliators seem to be getting somewhere, have been a pattern.

There was a striking example in August. It seemed that Colin Powell had finally convinced President Bush that if we aren't planning a war with North Korea, it makes sense to negotiate. But then John Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, whose role is more accurately described as "the neocons' man at State," gave a speech about Kim Jong Il, declaring: "To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him and, perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants."

In short, this week's diplomatic debacle probably reflects an internal power struggle, with hawks using the contracts issue as a way to prevent Republican grown-ups from regaining control of U.S. foreign policy. And initial indications are that the ploy is working -- that the hawks have, once again, managed to tap into Mr. Bush's fondness for moralistic, good-versus-evil formulations. "It's very simple," Mr. Bush said yesterday. "Our people risk their lives. . . . Friendly coalition folks risk their lives. . . . The contracting is going to reflect that."

In the end the Bush doctrine -- based on delusions of grandeur about America's ability to dominate the world through force -- will collapse. What we've just learned is how hard and dirty the doctrine's proponents will fight against the inevitable.

Delete

Nader's revenge against the Democrats

Take that Dems.

Molly Ivins: The cockroach theory

Where there's one, there are many: finance rife with corruption

"Talk about the lunatics running the asylum. Former lobbyists for special interests now dominate the top of the bureaucracies -- not to regulate, but to facilitate corporate rip-offs. Michael Powell at the Federal Communications Commission thinks more media mergers will be good for the nation. At the Interior Department, it is rip and run, all-out exploitation of natural resources, leaving nothing but a trash heap behind -- a trash heap, incidentally, that the taxpayers will have to pay to clean up, since the Superfund for toxic waste cleanups has been allowed to lapse entirely..."

Party of Big Spenders

Jeff Jacoby: The party of big spenders

"So where do things stand three years later? Federal spending is growing faster than at any time since LBJ, the budget is hundreds of billions of dollars out of balance, and the president (Bush) appears to support new or expanded government programs for just about every voting bloc in America."

Bush Fiscal Lunacy

Liberal Slant: So You Still Think Bush's GOP is Conservative? Sucker...

"In order to justify a statement that characterizes Bush's GOP as conservative you will just have to forget putting "fiscal" any where near "conservative" in the G.W. Bush lexicon. Bush's brand of fiscal lunacy's got his good old conservative buddies in Congress and on M Street spinning in their high back leather chairs..."

When Americans were giants

New York Times: George Marshall's World, and Ours

"His proposed solution, of course, was the Marshall Plan, outlined in another famous speech five-and-a-half years earlier, when Marshall was secretary of state. Surveying the European landscape of privation, need and unrest, he saw that a viable foreign policy for the United States required coordinated collective action. Peace and security, economic prosperity and stable democracy were interdependent. In this situation, the recovery of Europe was of vital importance. It was for this vision of collective action toward a common goal and shared purpose that he received the Nobel Prize..."

Gore: getting it right the second time around

John Nichols: Lieberman doesn't deserve pity party

"Lieberman's refusal to take up the anti-corporate message during the 2000 campaign helped maintain the sense that the Gore-Lieberman ticket lacked a focused message. No serious observer doubts that this led a substantial number of voters to abandon the ticket and vote for the Green Party's Ralph Nader..."

Speaking his mind

Time Magazine: Why Gore's Endorsement Is No Surprise

"If most people had been listening to Al Gore for the past year and a half, they wouldn't have been so surprised by his endorsement of Howard Dean early Tuesday. But not many people were listening. Gore told a crowd in September of 2002 that President Bush's quickening march to war with Iraq was a disaster; the party leaders who did notice called it a stupid move that would put Gore on the wrong side of history. Gore told TIME two months later, "I don't care." He was going to speak his mind from now on..."

Body blows to democracy

Independent/UK: The Court Case That Could Reshape US Democracy

"But the case's implications are nationwide. At stake is not only control of the House of Representatives in Washington, but the very health of democracy. "This is hugely important," says Sam Hirsch, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Democrats. "Gerrymandering on this scale is corrupting US democracy. This was not what the framers of the US constitution intended..."

Drunken sailors

Robert B. Reich: The Incredible Shrinking Dollar

"Just to keep the dollar steady would require that foreigners to buy $1.5 billion every day. But they?re not going to do that anymore. Why should they? We?re out of control, like a drunken sailor. And after all, who wants to entrust their money to a drunk?..."

Criminal behavior

Findlaw's Writ: The Supreme Court Considers An Appalling Case Where Prosecutors Hid Evidence From the Death Row Defendant, and Knowingly Presented Perjured Testimony Against Him

"More specifically, the prosecutors in his case hid important exculpatory evidence from Banks and his defense counsel. And they knowingly relied on false testimony from key witnesses.

Banks's case underlines what has, for a long time, been plain: America's system of capital punishment is broken, indeed, worse than broken: it is profoundly corrupting. And the federal judiciary will never be quite right until the Supreme Court recognizes this inescapable truth..."

Oh, my god

Los Angeles Times: Delivered Into Hell by U.S. War on Terror

Maher Arar is back in Canada. He's seeking a public investigation there and preparing a lawsuit, with the help of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, against the U.S. government

I recently spent 10 1/2 months in a grave-sized cell in Syria, unsure why I was there, unsure how to get out. Fear paralyzed my wits when I needed them most. I was beaten and I was tortured and I was constantly scared. Every day I worried that I would never be released, that I would disappear into that concrete grave forever.

Why was I being held? I still don't really know. I am not a terrorist. I am not a member of Al Qaeda. I am a Syrian-born Canadian. A father and a husband. A telecommunications engineer. I have never been in trouble with the police and have always been a good citizen.

My ordeal began on the afternoon of Sept. 26, 2002, when my flight back from a family vacation in Tunisia stopped over in New York and American immigration officials pulled me aside to answer a few questions. At first it was only an inconvenience -- thorough airport security, post 9/11-style. But my questioners persisted. And when someone waved a copy of the 1997 lease for my Ottawa apartment, I was shocked and confused. What was going on here? Who gave them the lease and what was its significance to them? For the first time, I began to realize that the questioning was not simply routine.

My interrogation in the United States took days. Shuttling in shackles among immigration officials, FBI agents and police officers, I asked repeatedly for a lawyer but was told that I didn't have the right to one because I was not an American citizen. There were no phone calls home either.

Only after days of often abusive, insulting, degrading questioning about whom I knew and what I was up to (besides computer work for my Boston-based employer) was I finally permitted to use a telephone.

But still I couldn't see the full picture. In the early hours of Oct. 8, 2002, I was formally notified that the U.S. government had classified information about me that it would not reveal-- and it would be deporting me that very day, without a word to my family, to the long-forgotten place of my birth, Syria.

To this day, unnamed American officials continue to allege that I have ties to Al Qaeda, although I have not seen the details and I have not been charged with a crime.

I hadn't been to Syria since moving to Canada with my family when I was 17. For half my life I have had no connection at all to that country. Yet I would surely be tortured, I told my New York captors, because I'm a Sunni Muslim; because my mother's cousin had been accused of being in the Muslim Brotherhood and imprisoned for nine years; because I had left the country before undertaking my military service.

My arguments were useless. Soon I was in a small private jet, chained and panic-stricken; then in a succession of cars in Jordan and Syria, blindfolded and beaten repeatedly; and finally placed in that shallow grave.

I describe my cell in Syria as a grave because it was just 3 feet wide, 6 feet long, 7 feet high and unlit. While I was there I sometimes felt on the verge of death after beatings with a black electrical cable about two inches thick. They mostly aimed for my palms but sometimes missed and hit my wrists. Other times, I was left alone in a special "waiting room" within earshot of others' screams. At the end of the day, they would tell me that tomorrow would be worse. In those 10 1/2 months I lost about 40 pounds. I never saw, but only heard, the agony of my fellow prisoners. I was so scared I urinated on myself twice.

I agreed to sign any document they put before me, even those I wasn't allowed to read. And eventually I would say anything at all to avoid more torture. "Do you want me to use that?" someone would ask when I didn't answer soon enough, pointing to a steel chair in the corner of the interrogation room.

No, I told them, I did not want them to use that. And yes, I told them, I had been to Afghanistan. It wasn't true, but it seemed important enough to my jailers. After a month, broken physically and mentally, I was also instructed to write these things down on a piece of paper next to other answers to other questions that they had gone ahead and penned on my behalf.

After almost a year in hell, I was taken out of my cell, brought before a prosecutor and forced to sign a confession and stamp my fingerprint on it. After that, I was released and flown home.

Today, the questions remain too numerous for me to list them all here.

For starters, I want to know why the United States sent me to one of the seven countries that the Bush administration has designated a sponsor of state terrorism-- and that President Bush singled out just last month as a country that tortures its own people. And I want to know why the Canadian government sent information on me to the United States and what the nature of that information was.

I need to know why this happened to me. My priority is to clear my name, get to the bottom of the case and make sure this does not happen to anyone else again.

False growth

The "sizzling" economy is driven not by real growth, but by debt. One day the bills will come due, and you and yours will have to pay them.

But not Bush and his wealthy friends.

Robert Kuttner: Growth without jobs

"THE ECONOMY grew at a sizzling 8.2 percent in the third quarter. But job growth is not following. The economy has shed about 2.6 million jobs since President Bush took office. In the past few months, it has begun creating new jobs, but not nearly enough. Last month the economy gained only 57,000 new jobs, compared with the 306,000 a month pledged by the administration. It actually continued to lose jobs in the politically sensitive manufacturing sector, some 19,000 last month. It's not that the economy is generating no manufacturing jobs at all. Rather, the good, unionized jobs in sectors like autos and steel are being lost to automation and low-wage foreign competition. It just happens that manufacturing is concentrated in political battleground states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin..."

Cannon fodder

Chicago Tribune: Chinks in our armor

" When you enlist in the Army, you can expect to be provided with everything you need to do your job. Uniform? Check. Rifle? Check. Boots? Check. Helmet? Check. But when it comes to one of the most vital items of equipment, foot soldiers braving enemy fire are sometimes left to fend for themselves. In Iraq, the U.S. Army doesn't have enough up-to-date Interceptor body armor to go around.

This is a failure on the part of the Pentagon that is hard to comprehend. The military now has lightweight Kevlar vests reinforced by boron carbide ceramic plates that will stop an AK-47 round cold. They're the main reason a lot of soldiers hit by enemy fire have survived bullets and shrapnel that would have been fatal in past wars. "There have been dozens and dozens of instances where body armor has saved lives of individual soldiers," an Army expert has said..."

In harms way

One of the consequences of putting our troops in the field is that, no matter how good their intentions, the very nature of modern combat leads to terrible, terrible accidents. I'm sure none of those responsible intended this to happen, but they will now have to live with this knowledge for the rest of their lives. And the Afgan people will not look to America as liberators, but only as killers. Our political leaders have a overarching moral imperative to protect not only our troops from unnecessary danger but any civilians in harms way. Bush's incompetence is incandescent.

Mercury News: Air strike on children inexcusable

BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BOTCHED THE PEACE

" Posted on Tue, Dec. 09, 2003 Air strike on children inexcusable BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAS BOTCHED THE PEACE Mercury News Editorial

The U.S. military's apologies won't do much for the residents of the remote Afghan village of Hutala.

They won't soothe their grief. They won't quell their anger. And they won't bring back their sons and daughters, seven boys and two girls, aged 8 to 12, who where killed Saturday morning by an American air strike. Some of the boys were playing marbles, while the girls were fetching water from a nearby stream..."

Cheap Political Ploys

Robert Scheer: GOP Has Got to Get Off the Dime

"Of course her husband (Nancy Reagan) would agree. His father had a job in Roosevelt's New Deal that saved their family and millions of others from starvation during the Great Depression. That's why Ronald Reagan voted for Roosevelt and became an active Democrat. Even after his conservative transformation, Reagan often insisted that he never left the party of Roosevelt but rather the Democratic Party changed over the years and left him..."

Subsidized Stupidity

David Morris: A Tale of Two Countries

"For every 100,000 SUVs sold this year, American taxpayers will be paying a subsidy of some $1 billion. Revealingly, that's about the same amount of money the federal government spent in the 1990s to encourage American car companies to build hybrid cars. It's also about the same amount we are spending each week to keep our troops in oil-rich Iraq..."

Media: Consistantly getting it wrong

tompaine.com: Campaign Cliches

"Once the primaries begin, the process rushes along too fast for reasoned judgments. Press perceptions about expectations and results doom campaigns. Yet before a single vote has been counted the press has created stereotypes about the candidates that say more about the media's inability to describe complex characters than they say about the candidates themselves..."

Medicare renamed to CorporateCare

Bob Herbert : Stalking the Giant Chicken Coop

"The bill that President Bush will sign today is a giant windfall for the drug companies, opening up a huge new market with virtually no effort to restrain prices. It will give Medicare recipients a modest drug benefit, but at a potentially dreadful cost. The bill starts the process of undermining Medicare by turning parts of it over to insurance companies, H.M.O.'s and other private contractors.

The drug benefit will be delivered almost entire