archived: 28 Sep - 4 Oct, 2003         Back                 Next

OCTOBER 4, 2003 SPECIAL UPDATE

                                TIME TO SAVE CALIFORNIA?      

                Do you have an hour this weekend to save California?  Yes, you!

                MoveOn has an emergency action program to defeat the recall in California.  How?  You can become a phone bank member even though you do not live in California.  You can help no matter where you live as long as you have a phone and a couple of hours of time to give to a vital cause. MoveOn will provide you with a list of households with telephone numbers to call today, Sunday & Monday. 

                It is simple.  Go to MoveOn’s website (the hyperlink is below).  Sign up and get a list of phone numbers.  MoveOn provides a suggested script.  Make the calls.

                Here is the hyperlink: (if the hyperlink does not work on your computer cut and past this web address into your internet browser:  www.moveon.org/pac/lapb

In the past 24 hours, MoveOn set a $500,000 goal to run ads this Sunday – they raised it in just a day! 

            But, Democrats don’t win with money.  We win with grassroots organizing – communicating one on one!  Become part of the movement today. 

            So much is at stake.  Losing California seriously jeopardizes the Democrat effort to recapture the White House in ’04!  In the past 24 hours the world has learned that Arnold:

Has sexually battered women over three decades and as recently as three years ago – and more women are coming forward.  His behavior is not consensual – it is criminal.  Arnold gives a public apology, but has not contacted one of the women involved to apologize. – LA Times   

Admires Adolph Hitler.  “A film producer who chronicled Arnold Schwarzenegger's rise to fame as a champion bodybuilder in the 1970's circulated a book proposal six years ago that quoted the young Mr. Schwarzenegger expressing admiration for Adolf Hitler. The book proposal . . .  included what were presented as verbatim excerpts from interviews with Mr. Schwarzenegger in the filming of the documentary "Pumping Iron." In a part of the interview not used in the film, Mr. Schwarzenegger was asked to name his heroes — "who do you admire most." "It depends for what," Mr. Schwarzenegger said, according to the transcript in the book proposal. "I admired Hitler, for instance, because he came from being a little man with almost no formal education up to power. And I admire him for being such a good public speaker."  In addition to the transcript, Mr. Butler wrote in his book proposal that in the 1970's, he considered Mr. Schwarzenegger a "flagrant, outspoken admirer of Hitler." In the proposal, Mr. Butler also said he had seen Mr. Schwarzenegger playing "Nazi marching songs from long-playing records in his collection at home" and said that the actor "frequently clicked his heels and pretended to be an S.S. officer." – New York Times

            K.B. Forbes, a REPUBLICAN strategist in California, has actually stated the reasons Arnold should be defeated quite well:

Arnold Schwarzenegger has become the poster child for the newest form of trash politics: a political system so corrupt and undemocratic that a compulsive sexual deviant was anointed the de facto nominee by California GOP bosses in a smoke-free backroom.

How much did Schwarzenegger's campaign team know about his egregious sexual behavior? Did they intentionally attempt to conceal this pattern of sexual harassment from voters? Did leaders of the California Republican Party look the other way in their desperation to win back the governorship?

In an era in which a candidate's first order of business is to hire an opposition research specialist to investigate his own past, it's hard to imagine that this was overlooked.

What Schwarzenegger's boosters in the GOP establishment fail to understand is that this is not about an old extramarital affair or someone's sex life from years past. This is worse. This is the story of a guy who rode the elevator, groping a woman on the way up, and who is now about to get off on the top floor: the governor's office.

Simply put, Schwarzenegger is unfit to be governor.

GOP leaders playing trash politics attempted to fool the voters — including many conservatives in their own party — by hiding the candidate's three-decade sickness and now by obscuring the line between his personal sex life and his nonconsensual sexual groping of women.

But he's been exposed. The victims of Schwarzenegger's harassing, if not criminal behavior, had the courage to expose his actions and possibly help save the GOP from making the wrong choice.

For the victims' sake, California voters must now unite and, next Tuesday, vote for anyone but Schwarzenegger.

                Make the calls today.  Contact MoveOn now!

_____________________________________________

OCTOBER 2, 2003 UPDATE

                               “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”

And when at some future date the high court of history sits in judgment on each of us . . .
Our success or failure, in whatever office we hold, will be measured by the answer to four questions:
First, were we truly men of courage . . .
Second, were we truly men of judgment . . .
Third, were we truly men of integrity . . .
Finally, were we truly men of dedication?

--  John Kennedy

                Remember Bush’s famous words, “mission accomplished?”  The graph above depicts the pyrrhic epitaph of Bush’s “triumph.”  The phrase “mission accomplished” is best remembered from the sign placed behind Pres. Bush as he stood on the aircraft carrier welcoming American troops home from Iraq.   As CNN reported:

Moments after the landing, the president, wearing a green flight suit and holding a white helmet, got off the plane, saluted those on the flight deck and shook hands with them. Above him, the tower was adorned with a big sign that read, "Mission Accomplished." – CNN

                Faced with the political fallout, Bush’s White House simply denies that Bush ever made the statement “mission accomplished.”    Republican revisionism began:

After weeks of Democratic assaults that President Bush was a nitwit for declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq during his May 1 landing and victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln, the White House is bidding to set the story straight. The issue should be a simple one: Bush never uttered those words. "The president," argues communications boss Dan Bartlett, "said exactly the opposite: The mission continues." But Bush stood under a banner declaring "mission accomplished." Why? Bartlett says that the Lincoln's captain had the banner made up to thank his crew for the longest-ever carrier tour, not to declare the war over. "It is something the troops are really proud of," says Bartlett. "Of course they can hang the banner." But the picture was all the Demos needed. "On TV," he says, "they never play the [sound] bite of the [P]resident, they just show the image with the banner." Democratic polls show that the public buys their spin, which doesn't really surprise Bartlett. "Look, perception becomes reality," he says. "But the facts don't back it up."  -- U.S. News  (red emphasis added)

Robert Novak even “spun” the use of “mission accomplished” to mean only that Saddam had been toppled; therefore, the use of “mission accomplished” was correct. – James Glaser  

                Have Democrat spin masters preyed on a gullible media?  No.

                While Bush did not actually speak the words “mission accomplished” on the USS Lincoln, he did when he addressed American troops in Qatar in June.  Bush declared:

I am happy to see you, an[d] so are the long-suffering people of Iraq. America sent you on a mission to remove a grave threat and to liberate an oppressed people, and that mission has been accomplished. (Applause.)

What is the source for this quote – the White House! – White House 

                Bush plainly congratulated troops for accomplishing two objectives; “removing a grave threat” (weapons of mass destruction) and liberation of Iraqis (removing Saddam).  The Presidents speech to American troops is mocked by Dan Bartlett’s spin and obliterate Novak’s lame logic.

                Why is this “small story” of Republican distortion and spin important?  The “mission accomplished” denial by the White House represents the depraved depths to which Bush’s administration is willing to lie, distort, and revise history to maintain their power and neoconservative agenda.  It ranges to critical “intelligence” on which Bush led us to war. 

                It does not stop and encompasses his entire administration:

On ABC's This Week (9/27/03), Powell explained that the Clinton administration "conducted a four-day bombing campaign in late 1998 based on the intelligence that he had. That resulted in the weapons inspectors being thrown out."

The actual history is much different. On December 15, 1998, the head of the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq, Richard Butler, released a report accusing Iraq of not fully cooperating with inspections. The next day, Butler withdrew his inspectors from Iraq, in anticipation of a U.S.-British bombing campaign that began that evening. Neither George Stephanopoulos nor George Will, who conducted ABC's interview, corrected Powell's false assertion.  – UN Observer     

                “Joern Siljeholm, [a weapons inspector] Ph.D. in environmental chemistry, risk analysis and toxicology, said that the USA's basis for going to war is thin indeed, and called it a slap in the face to the United Nations weapons inspectors.  Siljeholm told Dagbladet that Colin Powell's report to the Security Council on how Iraq camouflaged their WMD program was full of holes. "Much of what he said was wrong. It did not match up at all with our information. The entire speech was misleading," Siljeholm said. Asked if the Americans lied, Siljeholm said: "Lie is a strong word - but yes, the information Powell presented about Iraq's nuclear program was simply incorrect," Siljeholm said.” – Aftenposten (Norway)

                Upon Bush’s lies and distortions, young Americans continue to perish in Iraq.  “Two U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks in Iraq on Wednesday, the U.S. military said.  A U.S. military statement said a U.S soldier had been shot dead and another wounded in an affluent suburb of Baghdad on Wednesday night.  . . .  An American woman soldier was killed and three other soldiers were wounded earlier on Wednesday by a bomb blast near the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Saddam Hussein's home town of Tikrit, the U.S. military said.” -- Yahoo

                Recall this Bush ad in the Republican primary aired in response to Sen. John McCain’s attack on Bush’s credibility: -- gwu.edu

Governor Bush: Politics is tough, but when John McCain compared me to Bill Clinton and said I was untrustworthy, that's over the line.

Disagree with me, fine, but do not challenge my integrity.

I'm a leader and a reformer who gets results.  I fought the education establishment for high standards and local control, and won.

While Washington politicians deadlocked, I delivered a patients' bill of rights.

I challenged the status quo to reform welfare and cut taxes.

I fight for what I believe in, and I get results.

                Bush’s integrity has been measured and weighed.  It is severely lacking.

There is a reason we are Dems!
_____________________________________________

SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 UPDATE

                                WILD JUSTICE – “FAIR GAME”     

Revenge is a kind of wild justice, which the more man’s nature runs to,
the more ought law to weed it out.

-- Francis Bacon

                Bush’s White House greets a voice of truth with an act of revenge. 

                JOSEPH WILSON was deputy chief of mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 1988 to 1991. He is currently an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington.

                Bush’s administration assigned Wilson to investigate Saddam’s attempts to buy uranium in Africa as proof of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.  Wilson duly investigated the claim and found not merit to the allegations.

                Despite Wilson’s report, Bush made the claim in his now infamous sixteen words in his State of the Union Address.  In July, 2002, Wilson disclosed that Bush’s assertions were untrue.  He revealed:

The truth is the administration has never leveled with the American people on the war with Iraq.

. . .  One way the administration stopped the debate was to oversell its intelligence. I know, because I was in the middle of the efforts to determine whether Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium ``yellowcake'' -- a form of lightly processed ore -- from Africa.

At the request of the administration I traveled to the West African nation of Niger in February 2002 to check out the allegation. I reported that such a sale was highly unlikely, but my conclusions -- as well as the same conclusions from our ambassador on the scene and from a four-star Marine Corps general -- were ignored by the White House. – TPJ – “BUSH’S WONDERLAND”  [For the full text of Wilson’s disclosures a reprint of the New York Times story can be found at Common Dreams.]

RELATED STORY:  Talking Points Memo, one of the best “bloggers” on the web, interviewed Wilson.  His view on the war in Iraq are incredibly insightful and well worth the read. – Talking Points Memo              

            Shortly after Wilson courageously revealed the trust of Bush’s deceptions, Robert Novak wrote an op ed disclosing that Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative. – Robert Novak (original op ed)  Disclosure of the identity of any CIA operative is unprecedented and is a felony. 

            Who gave Novak the information?

            The source of the disclosure appears to the White House. “[A] senior administration official said that before Novak's column ran, two top White House officials called at least six Washington journalists and disclosed the identity and occupation of Wilson's wife.” –  Washington Post 

            Novak denies the White House was the source. “'Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this. In July I was interviewing a senior administration official on Ambassador Wilson's report when he told me the trip was inspired by his wife, a CIA employee working on weapons of mass destruction. Another senior official told me the same thing. As a professional journalist with 46 years experience in Washington I do not reveal confidential sources. When I called the CIA in July to confirm Mrs. Wilson's involvement in the mission for her husband -- he is a former Clinton administration official -- they asked me not to use her name, but never indicated it would endanger her or anybody else. According to a confidential source at the CIA, Mrs. Wilson was an analyst, not a spy, not a covert operator, and not in charge of undercover operatives'” -- Drudge Report  

            Talking Points Memo gives Wilson’s version of what Novak said at the time: -- Talking Points Memo

According to what Wilson told TPM early Monday evening, when Novak first contacted him in July, he told him that he had a CIA source that told him that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a "CIA operative."

Would Wilson confirm it?

Wilson declined to discuss the matter, as Novak's original article made clear. When Novak's article appeared, it sourced the story to "two senior administration officials."

Wilson says he called Novak back and asked why the article said 'two senior administration officials', whereas during their phone call he had sourced it to someone at the CIA

According to Wilson, Novak said "I misspoke the first time."

One thing this means is that, according to Wilson, Novak knew Plame was an "operative" rather than an "analyst" at the time he placed his first call to Wilson.

            What did the “two top White House officials” reveal about Wilson’s wife?

            “Sources familiar with the conversations said the leakers were seeking to undercut Wilson's credibility. They alleged that Wilson, who was not a CIA employee, was selected for the Niger mission partly because his wife had recommended him. Wilson said in an interview yesterday that a reporter had told him that the leaker said, "The real issue is Wilson and his wife."

A source said reporters quoted a leaker as describing Wilson's wife as "fair game."

The official would not name the leakers for the record and would not name the journalists. The official said there was no indication that Bush knew about the calls.” – Washington Post 

            Time Magazine confirmed that “officials” had provided similar information to them. – Seattle PI   “On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame [Wilson’s wife] ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer.’" – Find Law

            Why would “two top White House officials” disclose such information?

            According to the Washington Post’s source, “‘Clearly, it was meant purely and simply for revenge,’ the senior official said of the alleged leak.” – Washington Post 

            Wilson himself sees a different motivation.  ‘“It wasn’t to intimidate me, because I’d already said my peace,’ Wilson said. ‘Clearly this was to keep others from coming forward.’” – International Herald Tribune     

            Specifically, “In a discussion broadcast on C-Span . . ., Wilson said he believed Novak's sources wanted CIA analysts to fear that their families could be affected if they tell Congress that Vice President Dick Cheney or his aides had pressured them to slant intelligence.” – Seattle PI   

            There may be other White House motives afoot in making the disclosure.  “During the Nigergate scandal, the CIA contradicted explanations offered by the White House, which at one point tried to pin the blame for this screw-up entirely on the CIA. And a new--and slim--book by Laurie Mylroie, a neoconservative scholar associated with the American Enterprise Institute, accuses the CIA of actually trying to thwart Bush's war on terrorism. Mylroie's book--endorsed by Pentagon adviser Richard Perle--may well reflect the suspicion with which some neocons in (and close to) the Bush administration view the CIA.” – Seattle PI  

            Dem. Senator Charles Schumer called for an investigation by the FBI in July, 2002.  He called on the FBI to  "immediately launch an investigation to determine the source of this [leaked] information and assess whether there is enough evidence to refer the matter for criminal prosecution." In a statement, Schumer noted that investigations into such leaks are not unusual. In June 2002, the FBI investigated the allegation that someone had leaked classified congressional testimony provided by Lt. General Michael Hayden, the head of the National Security Agency. The Bureau, according to Schumer, questioned 37 members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and about 60 staff members. Vice President Dick Cheney had been one of the instigators of that inquiry. "The current scandal," Schumer says, "is just as serious as the one from June 2002." He adds, "This is one of the most reckless and nasty things I've seen in all my years of government. Leaking the name of a CIA agent is tantamount to putting a gun to that agent's head. It compromises her safety and the safety of her loved ones, not to mention those in her network and other operatives she may have dealt with. On top of that, the officials who have done it may have also seriously jeopardized the national security of this nation." (Without knowing exactly what Wilson's wife did for the CIA, it is not possible to judge fully the consequences of this leak. But Schumer's melodramatic appraisal could well be justified.)” – The Nation        

                In a startling revelation, Wilson asserts that none other than Karl Rove is responsible for the illegal disclosures.  He made the assertion at a conference in Washington State:  -- Mark A. R. Kleiman

At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words.

The conference, sponsored by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, is excellent and can be viewed on your computer by following this link – online video

            The White House is in full denial mode.  This exchange occurred at a White House news conference:

Q: On the Robert Novak-Joseph Wilson situation, Novak reported earlier this year quoting "anonymous government sources" telling him that Wilson's wife was a CIA operative. Now, this is apparently a federal offense, to burn the cover [of] a CIA operative. Wilson now believes that the person who did this was Karl Rove. He's quoted from a speech last month as saying, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs." Did Karl Rove tell that—

A: I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous. But we've already addressed this issue. If I could find out who anonymous people were, I would. I just said, it's totally ridiculous.

Q: But did Karl Rove do it?

A: I said, it's totally ridiculous.

            Timothy Noah of Slate Magazine cogently notes, “Maybe it's time for somebody to ask Rove himself whether he risked 10 years in jail in order to suggest that Wilson got his Niger assignment based on nepotism. And, perhaps, deliberately to punish Wilson by destroying his wife's career at the CIA. Rove is ruthless enough to have done so. The only real question is whether Bush's Brain is stupid enough.” – Slate

            The White House rejects appointing an independent counsel.  “The White House on Monday rejected Democratic demands that an independent counsel be appointed to find out who leaked secret information apparently aimed at discrediting a vocal critic of prewar intelligence on Iraq.  The sudden squall over the leak that blew the cover of an undercover CIA operative energized Democratic presidential candidates and deepened tension over the administration's failure to find promised weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” – Reuters

            Even more revealing, “White House officials said they would turn over phone logs if the Justice Department asked them to. But the aides said Bush has no plans to ask his staff members whether they played a role in revealing the name of an undercover officer who is married to former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, one of the most visible critics of Bush's handling of intelligence about Iraq.” – Washington Post    

            John Dean, of Nixon fame, states, “This is the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years of government-watching. Failure to act to address it will reek of a cover-up or, at minimum, approval of the leak's occurrence - and an invitation to similar revenge upon Administration critics.” – Find Law  

            The Wilson affair will be a crucial test for the White House.  The CIA has now formally requested that the Justice Department launch an investigation into the leak. -- MSNBC   Ashcroft must now make the decision.  Much weighs in the balance for the credibility of Bush’s White House.

            In essence, Wilson exposed one of Bush’s principal justifications for war in Iraq as, at the least, a manipulation of intelligence data and at the worst, reliance on “intelligence” that had been proven false.  Someone in the White House or “administration official” is punishing Wilson for telling the truth to the American people and sends a clear message to those connected to the government who would consider exposing Bush’s fabrications of war.  The “leakers” act is probably criminal and was done with a malicious intent.  Every citizen has a right to expect that they will be identified and prosecuted.  If not, justice in America is reduced to the revenge of the powerful and those who disagree with the Administration are reduced to “fair game.”

            From an investigative and prosecutorial perspective, identification of the source of the leak is not particularly difficult.  Novak, despite his position that he does not reveal confidential sources, enjoys no legal right to protect sources.  The Federal Government simply convenes a grand jury, requires Novak’s attendance and asks one simple question, “Who was the “senior administration official” who leaked the information to you?”  The same question can be put to Time and other publicans who were contacted.  This process would take just a few months and would reveal who committed any crime.

            The ONLY question is whether the Republicans have any commitment to justice.  Based on White House reactions thus far – we are all “fair game.”