ABLE DANGER--revised and updated

There have been many conflicting stories about what was involved in Able Danger. It is hard to believe that Al Qaeda and many foreign intelligence agencies do not have almost complete information on the project. Why are American citizens kept in the dark?

We already knew that US intelligence people had been tracking the future highjackers in Hamburg, Germany for years, and that Al Qaeda Cells in Brooklyn and in the west had also long been in the sights of the FBI. With the revelation of the Able Danger project, it becomes almost impossible to escape the conclusion that the federal government had more than enough information to prevent 9-11. The 9-ll 1 either was not told about Able Danger or it chose to ignore the information because it would have derailed its major conclusions. Commission co-chairman Lee Hamilton said the conclusions would have been different had they known about Able Danger, but he is the man who presided over what seemed to be a clumsy cover up of an October 19, 1980 deal with Iran to hold 52 hostages until after the U.S. election.
In 1999, the Pentagon Special Operations Command established Able-Danger, a secret program, to gather information on Al Qaeda. In that year, it had identified Mohammed Atta, the architect of 9-11, and three others as members of the cell that attacked the World Trade complex in 1993. .Atta would mastermind the 9-11, and the other three were also among the hijackers.
Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, who worked at the DIA, became aware of Atta and his three colleagues in mid-2000. Shaffer informed the FBI of what was known about these four Al Quada operatives. He urged the arrest of Atta, but Pentagon lawyers became involved to prevent the arrest. The lawyers claimed they had problems recommending action against someone holding a green card. But Atta did not have a green card or a valid entry visa. He came to the US three times on a visitor’s visa. The Pentagon is now denying that it knew anything about these people before 9-11. There is mounting evidence that Able Danger was much more than an anti-terrorist operation, and the Pentagon should not be faulted with keeping quiet about those aspects that involved highly sophisticated electronic surveillance of foreign targets outside the US.

When the Kean Commission came into being, Shaffer personally informed its executive director, Dr. Philip Zelikow, about Able-Danger and what was known about Atta and the three other hijackers. Zelikow did not give this information to the commission and did not include it in the document. Zelikow said it was "not historically relevant."1 Zeliknow had been on loan from the White House National Security Office and is now special counsellor to his friend, Secretary of State Rice.

Eventually the Army destroyed the Able Danger files on Atta claiming this was necessary because he was a "US person" under the meaning of legislation that said the military could only retain intelligence information on US persons for 90 days. It has been reported that some of the destroyed information involved ties between prominent Americans and the Chinese military The data also showed that several Al Quaeda operatives rented rooms in a New Jersey hotel and that a cell met there.

. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were briefed on what the Able Danger information-mining task force had learned. In February and March of 2001, Able Danger was shut down by the Defense Department, only to be reactivated later. Shaffer, a Bronze medal winner, lost his security clearance as well as his DIA job.Shaffer claimed that when the Bush administration replaced his top superior General Schoomaker, that all hope of using the knowledge gained was gone.Navy Captain Scott Philpott, hade of the team, said they identified Atta as a member of the Brooklyn cell, but the US had certain knowledge Atta was in Hamburg at the time Philpott gave. However, J.D. Smith, a civilian contractor, has said he was "absolutely positive" Atta was in Brooklyn at that time. . Shaffer was forbidden to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. However, this decision was later reversed.

The DIA is moving to take Shaffer off its payroll, and an unidentified DIA representative told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Shaffer was having an affair with one of Congressman Curt Weldon’s staffers. The Congressman answered that the colonel did not know anyone on his staff. Some other members of the Able Danger team are represented by Shaffer’s lawyer and are now saying Other members of the data-mining task force do not support his claim that they knew Atta was physically in the United States. The colonel must be under enormous pressure to modify his story.

While in Afghanistan, Shaffer told what he knew to Dr. Philip Zelikow, then US ambassador there. Zelikow expressed great interest in the information but avoided seeing Shaffer when the colonel attempted to contact him in Washington.
Former FBI director Louis Freeh has used this to sell his book, claiming the Clintons kept him from hunting Al Qaeda. Of course, he is a very partisan Republican and has never explained why three good leads within his agency were quashed or why he did not stand by John O’Neill, the best terrorist hunter we have had to date.

Two conclusions are inescapable. (1) There was great reluctance on the part of the Pentagon, under both Clinton and Bush, to act on the knowledge it had about Atta and his three friends.( 2) Now it is clear to all, that it is busy denying it had this knowledge, and it was mightily assisted in this cover-up by the executive director of the 9-11 commission.
Republicans note it was the Clinton Pentagon that failed to act on information about these terrorists. However, it was under Freeh, a very partisan Republican, that the FBI repeatedly failed to act on information that could have been used to stop terrorists. Moreover, it is clear that the FBI had knowledge of the movements of Atta and two others in Venice, Florida before 9-11.

James Woolsey, former CIA director and neocon who detested Clinton, is now working closely with Pa. Republican Congressman Curt Weldon to give the story a strong anti-Clinton spin. It is expected that Weldon will hold hearings to counterbalance those chaired by Specter in the Senate.

What is known is that Atta attended a flight school in Venice. The DEA confiscated and auctioned a private jet owned by one of the owners of the school. The agency found 43 pounds of heroin. No action was ever taken against the Venezuelan pilot or the owner Wally Hilliard. The same jet had made 39 weekly milk runs to Venezuela before the DEA acted. The school’s co-owner was Rudi Dekkers, a native of Holland who owed his government $3,000,000. There was a second flight school at that airport owned by another native of Holland, Arne Kruithof. The two Hollanders bought flight schools within months of one another. Dekkers claimed he did not know her, but they both used ascal Schreier, a German, to recruit Arab students.
Dekkers said Atta was a terrible person, an incompetent pilot who left school December 20, 2000 and did not return.. Others claim Atta was there in 2001 and that he and the operator were friendly. In August, two of the other hijackers were with Atta, and Atta’s attorney father visited from Egypt. The three younger men were said to hire a Yellow Cab in the evenings which was driven by a retired Navy Seal, who left soon after they left Venice.Another driver reported that the two were oin very friendly terms and that they shared a cab to a Sarasota night spot in August, 2001. Atta was apparently a hard drinker. ``Following the lead of the FBI, the 9-11 commission did not discuss the schools.

The Knight Rider papers, the Washington Post, and Newsweek reported a week after 9-11 that five of the hijackers had been trained at US military facilities at one time or another. This did not involve Atta’s brief employment much earlier in Hamburg, before he experienced a religious conversion in Egypt. It was said that Atta was at the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama. Abdulaziz Alomari was at the Areospace Medical School in Texas.
The Sarasota Herald-Times discovered that Atta lived for more than two months at the Sandpiper Apartments in Venice in March and April of 2001 with a part-time stripper and longerie model. She reported that the FBI urged her to keep quiet.
Soon after 9-11, FBI agents were in Venice asking questions that made it clear they knew about Atta’s movements there. They questioned another cabbie about their nocturnal rides with the other driver. They seized a pharmacy’s security tape for the day Atta and his father were there and excised that part of the tape. It develops in an odd coincidence that the woman who helped one of the hijackers find an apartment was the wife of Michael Irish, the senior National Enquirer editor who received an anthrax letter. Irish also used that aifield.
There were rumors that the flight schools had a CIA connection, and that their records were removed on September 12, 2001. . The limited action taken after the biggest drug seizure in central Florida history led to speculation about some kind of a protected drug trade. For years there have been rumors about CIA and DIA drug trading; and those who have written about this have had their careers ruined. There will probably never be enough evidence to prove why the Pentagon did not want to move against Atta and now claims it knew nothing about him. One employee said Atta and others moved on to a school in Pompano Beach to learn to fly big jets via simulator. He added that he did not think this approach could be successful.

Fired FBI translator Sibel Edmunds was asked if she came across evidence that there was any evidence of a connection between drug trading and 9-11. She is now under a very tough gag orders, and she only offered a sort of "nondenial-denial." Don’t look for solid answers anytime soon.

There is compelling evidence that the FBI was keeping track of Atta’s movements in Venice, Florida in 9-11. It has also been suggested that he had been involved in a protected heroin smuggling operation and that this accounts for the Pentagon’s reluctance to pursue him earlier.
Below is info of CIA surveillance abroad from the cooperative research operation called Complete 911 Timeline

What to Expect from Condi

Secretary of State Condi Rice has returned from Europe, where she was reasonably successful at dealing with reports of torture and a network of black holes with a mass of double-speak, obfuscation, and misleading language. Much depended upon how "torture" is defined, and she used the new definition given it by George W. Bush in a 2002 "finding."

This is the same Condi Rice who offered dead wrong explanations about what was known about terrorists in the US before 9/11 and who went beyond even Dick Cheney in hyping the case for war--talking about mushroom clouds over American cities as a result of Iraqi action. Yet her popularity grows by the day, and right-wing strategist Dick Morris is probably right in suggesting she would be verey hard to beat in 2008. If the Roman orator, lawyeer, and historian Cicero could be recovered via a time machine, he would say that when the masses are filled with fear and terror, they seek individuals to save them and eschew truth and reason.
Condi seems to be the ultimate beneficiary of the fear and paranoia strategy. Her reversal of Powell's Sudan policy offers a strong hint of what to expect from her as Secretary of State and potential president.



Colin Powell charged the Sudanese government with genocide in Dafur. The Sudanese army and paramilitarys known as the Arab Janjaweed accomplished this by gang rapes, burning of villages, and mass killings. Condi Rice, his successor, has reversed Powell's policy and written to Lieutenant General Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, the Sudanese head of state, saying that she hoped for "close cooperation" in battling terrorism.


In late April, a CIA jet brought Major General Salah Abdalah Gosh, head of the Sudanese intelligence agency Mukhabarat, to Washington for secret talks. Gosh has been accused of playing a major role in the mass murders. His agency has provided useful information on Al Qaeda, and the US relies on his operatives in Muslim countries where it lacks human assets.In May, the White House moved to kill the Dafur Accountability Act. The death toll in Dafur is somewhere between 400,000 and 800,000 human beings. The UN refuses to deal with the Dafur situation, and the International Criminal Court will probably not be able to address the matter for at least a year.
posted by Sherman De Brosse

What Are US Options as a De Facto Shiite Republic of Iraq Emerges?

The US invasion of Iraq has produced an Islamic republic with very close ties to Iran. The new constitution may not use the name “ Islamic Republic of Iraq,” but those words describe what is emerging. Such a state, with religious law and roving religious police, already is taking shape in the regions controlled by the two dominant Shiite parties, SCIRI and DAWA. Any US exit strategy must take account of these facts.

The fact is a Shiite Islamic Republic has emerged. Even before the legislative elections of late 2005, the Shiite government has moved against Sunni power centers. The new constitution is seen by some experts as less the blueprint for a long-term unified stat than a formula for eventual dissolution into three states. Few doubt that it is only a matter of time before the Kurds opt for a separate state.


Shiite death squads are already taking hundreds of lives, a number of mass graves have been discovered. Many of the murders are the handiwork of the Iraqi government's Special Police Commandos. These strike units are advised by the same American officer who guided Central American death squads in the mid-1980s. There are more and more signs that US airpower is being used against Sunnis in urban centers to teach them that there is a heavy price to pay for supporting insurgents. American officers have complained about being required to provide security while Shiite military forces abuse Sunnis. Former Minister Alawi referred to the abuse of Sunnis by comparing what is happening now to the activities of the Saddam regime. Recently, it was learned that the Shiites were torturing many Sunni prisoners and that over 120 Sunni captives were found in such a condition that some of their skin was about to fall off. Murder and terrorism proved an effective tactic in C entral America two decades ago, and it appears our government is betting on this approach again.

The US continues to refer to Iran as a terrorist state, but quiet, low-level talks are being carried out with Iran. Zalmay Khalilzad, an Afghan native and new US ambassador to Iran, onstitutes the best hope for protecting US interests there and facilitating the removal of most ground forceds in the next few years. Though one of the neo-cons who led the US into this adventure, he has shown a remarkable pragmatic streak, and he is a superb strategist and negotiator. Statements coming from US sources in the GReen Zone refer less and less to a unified Iraqi state in the future. He has been empowered to talk to the Iranians and has been given power to help shape US policy in the region.

His best option is an alliance with the Shiites, and Us policy on the ground indicates it is taking shape. Rumsfeld announced trhe eginning of troop withdrawls, indicating some assurance that a deal facilitating long term extrication is likely to emerge.

There is a potential fly in the ointment. The European press is reporting that the US is courting support for air attacks on Iranian military and nuclear sites, including the plant at Bushehr and the uraniam site at Saghad. Should this attack materialize, it wouild be difficult to count on Shiite and Iranian help in puilling large numbers ot troops out of Iraq.

Developments in Iraq give the lie to claims of an emerging democracy there, and Shiite policy seems likely to provoke civil war and/or dissolution. The US does not have many options that tgry to pick the winner, who unfortunately is linked at the hip to Iran.

In Baghdad, Shiites on city council in league with the military have deposed the city's mayor. So much for the democratic process.Iraq has apologized for the Iran-Iraq , and leader of SCIRI has said that Iraq should pay Iran billions in reparations. Iraq and Iran have also entered into a mutual defense arrangement. The Iraqi intelligence service has been thoroughly infiltrated by Iranian agents, and the two countries have already agreed that Iranians would train the new Iraqi army. Shiites remember that Iranians supported their 1991 revolt against Saddam, while the US did nothing to help as 300,000 of their coreligionists were slaughtered. Many Iraqis this massive loss of life was part of some sort of American plan.There can be little doubt that Karen Hughes and Karl Rove can spin away for most Americans the unpleasant facts that the war strengthened the hand of Iran—a member of the “axis of evil”-- and that over 1800 Americans have died to create an Islamic republic. A supine mainstream press will not dwell on these facts. The important thing is that our policy makers do not believe their own PR releases. They must swallow some hard facts and improve relations with Iran so that some sort of deal can be made to allow a face-saving exit. It can only be hoped that the price of extracting most of our forces is not turning a blind eye to Iran's nuclear ambitions.Another fact is that the only effective Iraqi military units are Kurdish, including some that are sponsored by the Kurdish Communist party. If these units are to remain outside Kurdistan to keep the Sunni insurgency in check, the US must take the needs of the secular Kurds into account while negotiating an exit deal. None of this will be easy.

HOW WRONG WAS NEWSWEEK IN REPORTING ABUSE OF THE KORAN?

In May, 2005, Newsweek magazine published an apology for printing an article which said that an unidentified Pentagon official said that a certain document showed that military interrogators at Guanatanamo had flushed a copy of the holy Koran down a toilet. For an undisclosed reason, the anonymous source later said he was not sure which document said this had occurred. He did not deny that he was privy to this information; he simply claimed he did not know in which document or documents he had read it. There is no question that Newsweek reporters had not properly verified the story.There had been other complaints about abuses of the Koran in military prisons, and days after the apology The Los Angeles Times reported that seven other detainees had lodged similar complaints.

On May 25, 2005 the FBI's summaries of interviews were obtained by the ACLU, and they revealed that almost a dozen detainees reported mistreatment of copies of the Koran. In reports in 2002 and early 2003, the International Committee of the Red Cross provided documentation of "corroborated allegations" of "multiple instances" in which US troops were mishandling or disrespectful Korans at Guantanamo. The Financial Times ( December 30, 2004) reported that some prisoners had tape placed over their mouths for reciting the Koran. The Independent of London reported on March 17, 2004 that 70 inmates went on a hunger strike after a guard kicked a copy of the Koran. On May 1, 2004, The New York Times reported that one of the three hunger strikes at the facility was touched off by guards tossing copies of the Koran into a pile and apparently stomped upon.The mishandling of the Koran was only the tip of the iceberg; there appears to have been a pattern of interrogation methods designed to be offensive to Muslims. Dogs were used to threaten Islamic detainees, and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s September, 2003 memo authorizing the practice indicates that this would "exploit Arab fear of dogs."

Similarly, the frequent photographing of nude Muslim men and "removal of facial hair" were approved by Donald Rumsfeld in November, 2002, and were designed to place detainees in positions in which they were in violation of deeply held religious beliefs.Detainees were often forced to be naked in front of one another or in front of the opposite sex, and threats were made to show these humiliating photographs to their families.There were also reports of Muslims having alcohol and pork being forced down their throats.Reports began to surface in 2004 t hat some prisoners who were released from Guantanamo were claiming that they had been tortured by "prostitutes." These men were questioned by women in late night sessions that included fake menstrual blood. The fake menstrual blood would render the detainees unclean and unable to pray. After smearing it on a prisoner, a female interrogator said, "Have a fun night in your cell without any water to clean yourself."

Sexual intimidation included interrogators sporting tight T-shirts, sexual touching, parading in miniskirts, and leaving bras and thong underwear hanging in the room. One woman in a tight shirt rubbed her breasts against the back of a praying internee and then mocked him because he had an erection.Vice Admiral Albert T. Church III later investigated these incidents and said only two women were involved and that they had devised these techniques entirely on their own.Even before the first abuses were reported. British observers voiced concerns that that many American troops had an unhealthy attitude toward the Iraqis which would threaten the success of the occupation. A senior British commander said, "They don’t see the Iraqi people the way we see them. They view them as untermenschen. If such an attitude did sometimes prevail, it would be worthwhile to learn why. Similarly, it is imperative that we learn why the evidence points to a pattern of interrogation techniques that exploited Muslim religious and cultural sensibilities.One can only wonder to what extent these abuses can be traced to the Bush administration's decision to redefine the meaning of "torture" as used in Title 18 of the US Code, Sections 2340-2340. The Bush Justice Department decided that abuse was not turture if its main intention was extraction of information.

Later, in July 2005, Senator John McCain attempted to amend a defense appropriations bill to ban torture, and he had enough support among Republican senators that Vice President Cheney was sent to bring them into line. The Bush administration threatened to veto the bill if it included the McCain amendment. Only nine senators voted against it.On the other hand, some abuses of human rights are simply inherent in warfare and particularly in wars that claims that all enemies are somehow complicit in terrorism. British troops, like American, seemed to believe this and the first abuses reported by Tariq Ali in Bush in Babylon were of British soldiers sexually abusing civilians and filming themselvbes doing so.Conservatives used Newsweek’s blunder to underscore its claim that the mainstream press could not be trusted and to insist that the claims of abuse of Muslim detainees have been greatly exaggerated. The mainstream press framed the story of the magazine’s sloppy reporting in a manner that usually ignored the fact that there had been many other reports of the abuse of the Koran in military prisons. Just as the uproar over Dan Rather’s poor handling of documents relating to George W. Bush’s military service made inquiries into the president’s Texas-Arkansas Air Guard services almost impossible to cover, the flap over Newsweek’s error could produce similar results. However, the main conservative response to the torture scandal is to minimize it. Rush Limbaugh consistently refers to "Club Gitmo," claiming the conditions there are similar to those at a resort. On another occasion, he pronouncedm "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation, and we're going to ruin people's lives over it....." He added that we should recognize that our troops needed "to blow some steam off." The "its no big deal" defense has worked pretty well.Some aspects of the scandal, such as torture at the hands of civilian contractors, have received very little attention. Brigadier General Karl R. Horst recently complained that mercenaries who are on the streets lften "do stupid stuff" like shoot people. Yet the whole matter of using mercenaries are nearly invisible, even after they turned up in New Orleans, boasting about their pay and what they had done in Iraq.There are now reports that some of the meals an American contractor provides Iraqi truck drivers provides Filipino and and Turkish employees of the occupation forces contain pork. Moreover, they regularly send outdated and spoiled food to Filipino and Muslim employees. Some of the Filipinos are Muslim. Some of the Filipino employees are Muslim , as are the Turks. Often the food is left over from soldiers' cafeterias and is shipped in garbage bags. To be fair here, it should be noted that American soldiers also receive spoiled and outdated food. What is involv ed here is not discriminatioon, rather it is good, old-fashioned greed and run of the mill overilling. . Let's watch the mainstream press to see how much coverage this gets



THE US POSITION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Many of us do not fully understand how the Right managed to take control of the country. The fact is that the US has long tilted to the right.1. It has accepted only 13 of 44 UN human rights treaties.2. It has ratified 14 0f the ILO's 162 active treaties.3. Only the US and Somalia have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the ChildThe current administration is particularly opposed to such agreements and is very committed to a go-it-alone posture. Though having a much better record on human rights than the GOP, Democrats have not rushed to embrace such agreements. A recent position paper issued by the Republican Policy Committee denounces the International Red Cross because it has raised questions about the treatment of detainees by the military and says it is losing credibility by claiming the torture has occurred in these facilities.Recall the scorn and vitriol heaped on Jimmy Carter when he tried to address human rights. Even in those last days of Democratic power, there were real limits to what an administration could do on behalf of human rights.LOOSE BUSHIE TALK ABOUT DEPLOYMENT OF NUCLEAR ARMS THREATENS NON-PROLIFERATIONDouglas Roche, former Canadian Ambassador for Disarmament, has raised warning flags about the Bush administration's speculation about when it could deploy nuclear weapons in a China-Taiwan conflict, a North Korean attack on South Korea, and various scenarios in which Arabs attack Israel. In some cases, this talk represents the first time the US has contemplated using nuclear devices against non-nuclear powers. Of course, it is a violation of the letter and spirit of the Non-Prolifertion Treaty of 1970.In 2000, the signatories agreed upon Thirteen Practical Steps that would lead to eliminating nuclear weapons. Since 2001, the United States has moved in violation of these principles and carried out a nucler posture review that makes it all too clear that nuclear weapons will remain the cornerstone of our national security policy for another half century. Commenting on all this, a Brazilian spokesman said, "one cannot worship at the altar of nuclear weapons and raise heresy charges against those who do not join the sect."The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty comes up for review again in May. No doubt the signatories will find a way to paper over the problem, adjusting to the policy shifts of the main nuclear power, but the movement has probably lost its steam. In 2015, there will probably be many more than 8 nuclear powers.

The Rather-Mapes Inquisition Revisited

On September 9, 2004, CBS aired a program segment that would cost producer Mary Mapes her job and would seriously damage the reputation of Dan Rather. The network produced photocopies of documents that showed that George W. Bush tried so evade his Air Guard duties in 1972. The documents were attributed to his commanding officer, Colonel Jerry Killian. One documents expert told Mapes the documents were trustworthy, and another supported his view. The problem was that several other experts advised CBS not to use them

The rest the mainstream press made the story CBS’s failure to establish beyond doubt that the copies were legitimate and resolutely refused to consider the context in which Mapes and Rather made their decisions. As a result, questions about George W. Bush’s Guard service was rendered out of bounds.CBS did not reveal its source, and some conservatives insisted they came from the Democratic National Committee. Later, USA Today turned up another document in which Killian tried to find out if Bush ever took the physical examination. Marian Carr Knox , Killian’s former secretary, said she did not type them but was certain their contents reflected the facts of the situation then and Killian’s frustration that Bush was defying him.

In the ensuing debate, neither her comments or the USA Today document were given any weight.Killian was not alive to verify the documents, but CBS had contacted his commanding officer General Bobby Hodges who said the memos reflected what Killian had told him about Bush. He did not vouch for their authenticity. After a storm of criticism arose, he told CBS they were forgeries and refused to verify that the contents reflected accurately what Killian reported about Bush.2 Right-wing bloggers said the documents were forgeries because they contained "superscripts", and they said typewriters in 1972-1973 were not equipped for that. CBS soon proved that government typewriters then did have "superscript," but no one seemed to listen and even now journalists praise the accuracy of those right-wing bloggers.

CBS had to reveal that the copies came from Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett, who had become an anti-Bush zealot because, earlier he had claimed, Bush operatives had purged Air Guard records of damaging information. He said that aids of the governor visited the archives of the Texas Guard at Camp Mabry in 1997 and scrubbed them of much of the information about Governor Bush’s service according to Burkett. He reported hearing Joe Albaugh, Bush’s chief of staff, discussing with Adjutant General Daniel James the need to get rid of documents that could embarrass the governor. Several days later, Burkett saw several such documents in a trash can and read them When he made that claim, he was counting on a colleague to support him; but that man backed out at the last minute.Burkett had said he made repeated attempts to tell the Kerry campaign that he saw documents like them at in the trash at his base. He never got beyond a number of youthful workers, so he sent an e-mail to Senator Max Cleland. He said he was never contacted by anyone from the campaign.

Burkett, a very religious man, probably did not forge the papers. He later admitted the were given to him by a Hispanic woman whose story he very much wanted to believe. This person seems to have vanished from the radar. Who sent her remains a mystery, but this writer would not be astonished if Karl Rove had enlisted her in a brilliant sting that discredited CBS and Dan Rather and made explorations into George W. Bush’s background out of bounds.

The known information about Bush’s Guard service certainly suggested that what the documents said was true, and this is probably why Mapes and Rather went with the story and made the mistake of assuming the documents were legitimate. For some reason, none of the critics of CBS showed an ioata of intererst in what was known from other sources about Bush's Air Guard Service. The team appointed to investigate Rather and Mapes was unable to demonstrate that they were forgeries. It was not instructed to look into Bush's service in the Air Guard. The inquisitors had many questions about Ms. Mapes' politics, as though liberals had a compulsion to fabricate evidence.

George W. Bush made a six year commitment to the Texas Air National Guard in 1968.The sons of other prominent Texas families occupied had found this a convenient way to have stateside duty. Bush scored the minimal points on a qualifying test and with the help of Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes was given one of two remain flying slots in a Guard Unit known as the "champaign unit." He was assigned to flying F102 interceptors. At the time there was a waiting list of over 100,000 people trying to get into the Air National Guard. 4 People who saw the papers of the papers of the late Colonel Jerry Killian indicate that Bush discussed with him ways to avoid regularly scheduled drills from May to November and to get around taking a physical examination in 1972 and that the colonel was pressured by superiors– one of whom was a legendary retired officer- too see that Bush received good ratings. Bush was ordered to take the annual physical examination but never did so .

Dan Rather later apologized for using the documents since it had become impossible to authenticate them.On September 29, 1972, the Air National Guard confirmed orders suspending Lt. Bush from flying status because he had not accomplished a medical exam. Years later, an aid to Governor Bush explained that he had decided to quit flying. This was at a time wheen the military started testing for drug use and insisting that the examinations be administered by military physicians. Bush had managed to arrange to meet his Guard obligations in Alabama, where he was involved in a Senate campaign.

Linda Allison, widow of the campaign chairman, and others reported that they had kn knowledge that Bush wanted to participate in the campaign until several days before his arrival. She said, "Well, you have to know Georgie....He really was a totally irresponsible person. Big George called Jimmy [ her husband] and said, he’s killing us in Houston, take him down there and let him work on that campaign...." She said she thought he was using pot and "perhaps cocaine."It was said that Bush thrashed the house he rented in Montgomery and did not pay the damages. There is no record he ever appeared for drills there in 1972-1973. General William Turnipseed, who then commanded the Alabama Guard, said Bush did not appear for duty. He received two special orders instructing him to return to Texas for duty, and he did log 36 days of duty, beginning in July, 1973.In the Fall of 1973, Bush was demoted to assignment in the Obligated Reserve Section in Denver because he was unable to meet his obligations as a jet fighter pilot. Bush was released early from the Guard in return for his signing a promise that he would enter the Reserves, but he never kept the promise. However, pay records that were later released showed that he made some effort to make up some service obligations while there working on a senatorial campaign.

In September, 2004, it was reported that critical written reports on Bush’s service, though required to be preserved had either not been written or had somehow disappeared. Bush had missed his medical examination in `1972, but somehow the report on this incident was missing. He had clearly missed five months of drills and regulations required that he receive counseling after this infarction. Yet no information on these events were found in his files.Questions about Bush’s military service were explored in some detail by the AP wire service, The Washington Post, Boston Globe, and other print media during the campaign of 2000. The television news programs did not deal with it then and it was not a major issue. 7The issue briefly reappeared in early 2003. In February, 2004, the Bush White House tried to end the discussion of his Guard Service by making public hundreds of documents.They were mostly payroll records, but many key pieces of correspondence had somehow disappeared.

The documents proved difficult to understand, and only independent Paul Lukasiak of Philadelphia bothered to study them. The president claimed he had "made up" all their monthly training exercises he had missed, but Lukasiak proved that five months had not been made up. Bush’s records showed he often took substitute training before scheduled monthly training but there was no proof Alabama Guard authorities authorized these substitutions. Moreover, his substitute training did not conform to Air Force regulations requiring it occur no more than 15 days before a scheduled Unit Training Assembly or 30 days after it. One John Calhoun claimed he was Bush at 8 or 10 of the assemblies, but Bush himself never claimed to be at more than one of the assemblies Calhoun mentioned. Nevertheless, Calhoun was featured on many right-wing talk and cable shows in 2004. At the same time, one Bob Mintz, until recently a Republican, came forward to testify that he had been looking for Bush at the base because he wanted to find another bachelor to chum around with but never found him. Retired Colonel and flight instructor Leonard Walls, who is non-political, also testified that he never met Bush at Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Montgomery. Lukasiak raised many other troubling matters, one of which was why Bush was stripped of flight status in 1973, but the mainstream press showed no interesting in his investigative work.

The IRS and Religion

Two decades ago conservative strategists decided to play the religion card, and some of them talked about turning conservative churches into a vast network of Republican "club houses." The reference was to the political club houses of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries. Now, they have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations, and the political churches or religious Republican club houses are vastly more powerful than the old club houses where people played cards, smoked cigars, and haggled over minor patronage.Last years, hundreds of Protestant and Catholic churches were treated to sermons on the theme that a good Christian could not vote for John Kerry. The priests and ministers usually stopped just short of saying the congregants should vote for George W. Bush.

However, these political churchmen came so close to doing so that conservative Congressman talked about introducing legislation permitting men of the cloth to cross the line a few times before endangering the tax-exempt status of their churches.In October, 2004, Rector Emeritus George Regas told the folks at All Saints Episcopal in Pasadena that Christ would not support a preemptive or preventive war. He also talked about poverty, but did not endorse the tough love approach to compassion, stripping the poor of benefits to compel them become creative and industrious. Regas did not urge people to vote for Kerry or against George W. Bush.Nevertheless, the IRS is now considering whether to strip that church of its tax exempt status. It is unlikely occur. Perhaps the threat to All Saints was intended as a means of arguing in favor of legislation permitting churchmen to discuss politics in the pulpit.

More than a few progressive clergymen will hear the warning shot and learn to trim their sails, even if it means backing off from some of the Christian message.How many religious Republican club houses has the IRS investigated? Narry a one.This is partly about intimidation and smart politics. Much more is involved. The people behind these policies support religious indoctrionation in public schools and at the Air Force Academy. They tried to produce a specially annotate version of the Bible for the Armed Forces.

At bottom many on the Religious Right are true believers who cannot brook dissent and find it blasphemous to even suggest that Jesus Christ would question American exceptionmalism or refuse to enlist in a crusade led by George W. Bush. The Catholics among them, worked ov ertime to explain John Paul II's opposition to both!

Tom DeLay's Smile

The former Majority Leader entered a Texas court room with a huge smile plastered on his face even though he was facing two indictments. He knew the odds were great that he would win his motion to replace a judgee who had made contributions to John Kerry and Move.On. After all, most folks in Texas knew MoveOn. Org members were crazy and unAmerican. They like other committed Democrats simply could not mkae fair judgments because the4y did not share the values Americans should share. The imperative that all Americans should share the same outlook is esentially wshat the New Right is all about.

Don't be surprised if he also wins the motion for a change of venue. Too many Democrats and minmority folks in the Austin area. Thay could hardly be expected t o render all-American judgments. They are not quite good americans and do not realize that De Lay deserves praise and a pass for bending a rule or two in the cause of what red state people think is virtue. The odds of him walking are subnstantial.

The fists judge was replaced by a partisan Republican. then the power to select went to the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court, a very partisan Republican, Wallace Jefferson. He selected a Democrat not known for partisanship, in a state where Democrats are usually pretty conservative. De Lay did not complain about this selection. Jefferson was associated with DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority, the outfit accused of shifting donations for federal elections to Texas legislative races. Even if the case goes against DeLay, it will go to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, where all the judges are Republican. No wonder De Lay is all smiles!

A NEW THREAT TO OUR LIBERTIES

The Bush Administration has used the Katrina tragedy to justify calling for amending the Posse Comitatus ACt of 1878 to permit the military to become a first responder in national emergencies. This would mean the military could come into a state without being requested by its governor.

"Slippery slope" arguments are a logician's delight. But given the Bush administration's record in protecting civil liberties, one can only wonder where this new initiative could lead. It has used the Patriot Act to attempt to pull hundreds of cases out of the civilian courts. EVen after the courts ruled that detainees must be given hearings, it established military tribunals to simply go through the motions. In many ways, the Bushies have moved toward establishing a parallel legal system.

Next on the agenda seems to be a Homeland Security agency under its aegis. We've read for years about CIA domestic ingelligence and even some work by al alleged fifth division of the FBI.
One can only imagine the activities of the new agency when we read about the FBI and Secret
Service acting to suppress free speech. The most recent case involving a 10th grader who submitted an unflattering poster on Bush for a First Amendment project. Given the proclivity of conservatives to extend the reach of secrecy in government, we would nevere know the full extent of the new agency's activities.

A final concern that relates to this is the secrecy about military interrogation techniques and the determination of the administration to block a Senate amendment limiting abuse of prisoners.

When did Bush decide he was above the law? One of his first acts was to nullify tghrough executive regilations the Presidential Records Act, preventing scholars to get at his father's Vice Presidential and Presidential records. Then he extended executrive privilege to cover Cheney's energyn task force, even though Republicans had earlier forced Mrs. Clinton to disclose everything about her health task force. Then Alberto Gonzales told him that the Constitution was outdated, as a means of helping Bush to open the door to tortyuring prisoners. Then came his worst abuse, authorizing wiretaps without warrants on thousands of telephone conversations.

Noi wonder Capitol Hill Blue reports, after interviewing three immediate sources, that Bush has called the constitution "goddamned piece of paper," nothing in comparison with his powers as Commander in Chief.

RELIGIOUS INDOCTRINATION AT THE AIR FORCE ACADEMY

There have been numerous reports that evangelical officers and chaplains have been pressuring cadets to become evangelicals. Jewish and non-evangelical cadets complained about intolerance and discrimination. A parent of a cadet complained that his son was called "a filthy Jew."

The campus newspaper carried an advertisement signed by almost 300 Air Force personnel urging the cadets to get saved. Some professors began classes with prayer, several told cadets to get saved by the end of the semester. A coach once posted a huge evangelical banner in a locker room. Cadets are told they will go to hell if they are not born again.

It was alleged that Brigadier General John Weida, commondant of cadets, employed coded language to urge evangelical cadets to convert others. He later admitted that religious coercion on campus was a problem, but he had no idea how to deal with it. It would take decades to solve. The Academy officially sponsored a screening of Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ.

Dr. Kristen Leslie from the Yale Divinity School issued what is known as the Yale Report, which complained if "pervasive evangelical" bias at the academy. Academy officials criticized the report and attempted to ignore it. Captain Melinda Morton, a Lutheran chaplain, had signed the report and was ordered by the chief chaplain Colonel Michael Whittington, to unsign it. Reverend Morton refused to retract her signature and defended the report. She was transferred to Okinawa before the end of her tour, and resigned her commission as a result. The Air Force conducted its own investigation, which only acknowledged a few problems.

In Congress, Representative David Obey complained about this situation and was denounced Republican John Hostettler of Indiana for participating in the "long war on Christianity in America..." The Hoosier added that Democrats are given to "denigrating and demonizing Christians." Obey offered a ryder calling for an impartial and thoorough investigation, but it was defeated 218-198.

All this is the more troublking in view of the fact that the numbere of evangelical chaplains in the servives is increasing exponentially while the ranks of Catholic and mainline Protestant military clergy are thinning our. The mainline Protestants have developed serious problems with militarism since Vietnam, and there are few Catholic priests to send to the Armed Service. Other reasons for concern were the number of Christian symbols on display at the 2004 Republican National Convention, and the fact that Lieutenant General William Boynton remains a top Pentagon planner. He had said publically that his American god was far superior to the Muslim god. Add to this the Pentagon effort to produce its own version of the Bible, and one might see the makings of a very unhealthy pattern.

FRIST INVESTIGATION A PUZZLER

A review of George W. Bush's history with the SEC leads one to wonder what the SEC could possibly find wrong with Bill Frist's selling of HCA stock from his blind trust.

Despite legal advice not to sell, George W. Bush unloaded his Harken stock soon after he learned the company was in deep trouble, and before the stock tanked. He had previously failed to meet SEC filing deadlines in othr matters. Nevertheless, the SEC did not even bother to interview him.

It is almost impossible to believe Bush was not using nonpublic information unless one assumed that he did not read reports or listen to what was occurring at meetings. In Frist's case, there is less reason for suspicion. He was told in 2002 what stock the trust held, but in 2003, he told interviewers that he did not know if HCA was in the portfolio. Under his unusual trust rules, he had a right to know what was there and to order a stock sold.

HCA was founded by his father Thomas Frist, and once run by Thomas Jr. Company officials sold off over $100 million in stocks before the firm announced that second quarter earnings would not live up to expectations. The senator ordered his sale in June and the stock was sold when it was near its peak.

Unlike the Bush case, there is room to doubt that the Tennessee senator held nonpublic knowledge and acted on it. Perhaps he had not discussed the hospital chain with his family.
How can it be proven that he did??? His investment in the firm was between $7 and $35 million. Maybe he weas not interested in the family business.

Frist's friend, SEC chair Christopher Shays has recused himself from this case, but it is a stretch to believe that his subordinates wopuld move against Frist. In the Bush case, the SEC chair was a Bush family friend who did not even bother to recuse himself.

The investigation is more likely an effort to remove this matter from the table before Frist runs for the GOP presidential nomination in 2004. A favorble SEC report and the blessing of his evangelical allies will be sufficient to make the matter disappear. To this day, the mainstream press has shown little interest in George W. Bush's SEC problems. It can be assumed that self-censorship will continue after the SEC clears Bill Frist.

THE KATRINA OUTRAGE: PERTINENT FACTS

Before the Hurricane
In the Reagan Administration, there was a concerted effort to get FEMA out of the disaster business, shifting the responsibility to local and state government. If you do some research of a FEMA conference at University of Miami in mid-eighties, you will learn what the new mission was to be. In 2001, Bush wanted to pick up where Reagan left off. Joe Albaugh, a Bush friend and campaign manager, took over FEMA and said FEMA should scale back its activities and leave disasters primarily to state and local government. He said the agency was "n oversized entitlement program" and said states should reply on faith-based organizations ...like the Salvation Army." Later, when Bush hugged the two distraught women in Louisiana, all he could say was that the Salvation Army would attend to their needs.

In 2002, Michael Parker, a former Republican Congressman from Florida, was forced to resign as head of the Corps of Engineers. He had protested drastic funding cuts.

By 2003, plans were developed to take FEMA out of the disaster business. This outlook might explain why Governor Blanco had so many problems contacting the president and other ranking officials by telephone. The plan assumed disaster work would be carried out by private enterprise. Plerasant Mann, head of the union for PHEMA employees, noted that Our professional staff are being replaced by politically connected novices and contractors....A lot of the institutional knowledge is gone."

The new orientation included shutting down successful Project Impact, created under Clinton, which mitigated damage by moving and elevated "repetitive loss"dwellings most likely to be hit by storms. FEMA has estimated that mitigation saved two dollars for every one spent. Eventually it was replaced with a much smaller operation that could only be employed by wealthy communities able to provide matching funds.

Max Mayfield , head of the National Hurricane Center, briefed Secretary Chertoff on what would happen when th4e level four hurricane struck New Orleans. Mayfield warned that the levees could be overwhelmed. He also briefed President Bush via conference call. Later, Bush, Chertoff, and Brown all said they were surprised by what happened. Bush later told Diane Sawyer that he didn’t think anyone thought the levees would break. But Mayfield commented, "It was not like this was a surprise."

In 2004, FEMA disaster relief activity in Florida had more to do with reelecting George W. Bush than helping people. Republican areas in Miami-Dade were receiving windfall payments even though Hurricane Frances barely touched the area. The South Florida Sun Sentianal obtained Jeb Bush’s e-mail correspondence with FEMA, which showed the FEMA operation there was about indirectly purchasing votes.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26 and asked for federal help on August 27. Then George W. .Bush declared a state of emergency, but his document did not include New Orleans or some other coastal areas among those eligible for assistance.

The Bush administration reduced by 44% the amount that had been appropriated under Clinton to protect New Orleans. Among the items slashed was money for more pumping stations. The 2005 budget eliminated all money to improve the New Orleans hurricane plan. To be fair to Bush, there was some work funded to repair the levees, and the two breaks occurred where some repairs were made. In 2004, federal funds for the levee was cut to a trickle. The East Jefferson Levee Authority managed to find $2, 250,000 by raising property taxes to make some repairs. Lacking funds, the local Corps of Engineers imposed a hiring freeze.

Democratic Mayor Ray Negin "strongly encouraged" people to evacuate New Orleans but he did not do much to help those without transportation to leave. We will hear his defense when a Jount Congressional Committee looks into the disaster. Democrats on the committee have not been given the power to issue subpoenas, meaning they cannot pursue independent lines of inquiry.

Pedestrians tried to escape New Orleans via the Greater New Orleans Bridge but were turned back by the police from the integrated suburb of Gretna, Louisiana. A black councilman and policemen agreed there were no resources to share with the displacees.

To the East, St. Bernard Parish authorities blocked roads with cars and trucks.

After the Hurricane Struck

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley offered to send 100 policemen, 36 firemen, 140 street and sanitation workers, 130 other people, plus various trucks and equipment to New Orleans. FEMA declined the offer and requested one tanker truck.

FEMA turned away 500 Florida airboaters who volunteered for rescue operations, and the Department of Homeland Security delayed the American Red Cross from entering.
Loudoun County, Virginia sent twenty deputies who were turned away. FEMA turned down offers of trains, generators, diesel fuel, other equipment and water from corporations, states and municipalities.

The Pentagon drowned in paperwork requirements offers of National Guard assistance from New Mexico and some other states. But miraculously some units from Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas got there by late Tuesday and Wisconsin somehow also managedc to get units there despite Pentagon restrictions.

A Royal Canadian Mounted Police rescue team got to New Orleans before the U.S. Armed Forces arrived in significant numbers.

On the fourth day, large numbers of US troops began to appear. They were brought in from Iraq. 40 % of the Guard from the Gulf States were deployed in Iraq, and the necessary equipment and high-water vehicles had been sent there as well. Soon thereafter, US mercenaries were redeployed to New Orleans from Iraq to keep the peace.

Two days after all hell broke loose, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and FEMA director Michael Brown had no idea people were starving in the New Orleans Convention center.
While people on the Gulf Coast were suffering, FOX pundits were complaining that federal funds would have to be spent to help these people. Fred Barnes said these folks were bilking "the taxpayers with their cavalier choice of domiciles," and Charles Krauthamer said, "It’s a bit unseemly to talk about cutting off aid while the hurricane is still roaring through Mississippi. But let’s give it a try." Senator Rick Santorum thought people who refused to leave their homes should be fined in the future.

Bush indefinitely suspended the Davis-Bacon Act for the Gulf States, making it possible for federal contractors to pay laborers less than the prevailing wage. That wage for construction workers in Mississippi is $9.50 an hour.

SPINNING THE BUSH RESPONSE TO NEW ORLEANS DISASTER

In the immediate aftermath of Katrina’s attack on the Gulf Coast, the mainstream media began to cover the disaster in a manner favorable to the Bush administration. Chris Matthews trumped about how much was being accomplished as a super power turned its attention to disaster relief. Wolf Blitzer asked former Senator John Breaux if Bill Clinton was responsible for inadequate funding of levee repair, but he did not request information about George W. Bush’s dismal record. A few days later, media people were so appalled by the enormous disconnect between the official story and what they were seeing, that they actually pointed out this discrepancy and the Bush administration’s failure to respond to the crisis. Soledad O’Brien even asked FEMA director Mike Brown, "How is it possible that we’re getting better intel than you’re getting?" Conservative Jack Cafferty even acknowledged that broadcasters were not mentioning "the elephant in the living room," the possibility that racism had something to do with the slow response to the needs of New Orleans. It would be too much to suggest the mainstream media was growing a backbone, as it soon returned to treating the Bush administration with kid gloves. But still, it provided a few days of honest reporting that gave every American the opportunity to see just how badly the Bush administration had dealt with the catastrophe.

A September 6 CNN poll showed that 63% of Americans believed no federal official should be fired in connection with the slow response to the New Orleans disaster. Thirty-five percent thought Bush’s handling was good or great. These were people who were simply incapable of believing the Bush administration could bungle anything this serious. Forty-two percent thought the president’s performance was bad or terrible. Among independents , 29% approved Bush’s performance, and 47% disapproved. That many more people did not find Bush’s performance bad or terrible is a tribute to the exceedingly effective Republican spin operation and the simple fact that the community values of Franklin Roosevelt are being edged out by those of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Bill O’Reilly, on his September 9 telecast, told his conservative followers that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were responsible for the disaster in New Orleans. In view of the federal government’s incredibly slow response, it is clear that the GOP noise machine needs to craft a message to distract attention from this failure of the Bush administration. O’Reilly usually mirrors the party line to a fault, so his broadcast may have been a trial balloon. This time the default response of blaming Clinton did not seem to work.

Republican commentator identified the main theme of the GOP response when he said, ""I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9/11 victimes" [ who dared to criticize his Leader]. He called the people who remained in New Orleans "scumbags." The American Spectator, which often tests new Republican positions, emphasized New Orleans’s historically high crime rate without linking it to deep poverty. The blame-the-victim approach was helped by the fact that almost all the victims in New Orleans seemed to be black and very poor. Senator Rick Santorum blamed the victims for not leaving the city. Too much of the television coverage focused on lawlessness that did occur after the hurricane and flooding, and there was too little attention to enduring deep poverty. Rush Limbaugh, the most influential GOP propagandist, harped on the theme that the suffering, stranded people of New Orleans were responsible for their own fate because they did not evacuate. By Saturday, FOX NEWS was focusing almost entirely upon successes that did occur in the rescue operation. The various fact checking organizations kept batting down wild claims about black storm victime, but they kept popping up. A month later, Sean Hannity was talking about victime using FEMA checks to rent condos at Martha's Vineyard, whee $2000 would not go far), buying alcohol ( probably true), and purchasiong many lap dances. Such tales not only deflect attention from Bush's failure, they further diminish the nation's sense of compassion and connectedness.

Much blame was placed on the mayor of New Orleans and Governor Kathleen Blanco. It has been said that the mayor could have saved those left behind by evacuating them on city buses and school buses before the storm struck. Whether he had the resources to do this needs to be examined. Even though Governor Blanco had sent Bush detailed information on what assistance would be needed before the hurricane struck, she has been the target of much criticism. On September 4, The Washington Post acccepted the Republican claim that Governor Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency. In fact, she did this on August 26. It is said–with no evidence- that she delayed Red Cross assistance from reaching New Orleans. Newsweek the same false story and added to it saying, that Blanco "seemed uncertain and sluggish, hesitant to declare martial law or a state of emergency, which would have opened the door to more Pentagon help." The delaying of the Red Cross was the work of FEMA, and the governor had declared a state of emergency and requested help--several times-- before disaster struck. The Post later printed a correction. Given they had been party to printing lies and political propaganda, both publications should have outed their White House source.

Blanco resisted having the Louisiana guard federalized because that would place too many restrictions on them in keeping the peace. Her reasons for taking this position were never mentioned by GOP critics. She is also denounced for at first refusing to meet with Bush when he traveled to the area on September 9. The truth was that she had not been informed of his itinerary.

Bush’s visit was a masterpiece of PR. He hugged two comely, well-dressed African American women. Fifty fire-fighters from the North were diverted to pose with him, and a Coast Guard helicopter was diverted to be used as a prop. He was photographed at a hastily assembled food distribution point, which German ZDF news reported was quickly disassembled as soon as he left. Senator Mary Landreau, a conservative Democrat, referred to another Bush appearance that day as "a hastily prepared stage set for a Presidential photo opportunity." When Bush appeared at the breached 17th Street levee, there was a great deal of equipment there. When the Senator flew over the site the next day, the assemblage of machinery was reduced to a "lonely piece of equipment." Several days before, Michael Brown bragged at a news conference that his agency was feeding everyone at the still crowded New Orleans Super Dome. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, publishing on line, retorted that "Lies don’t get more bald-faced than that...." Yet, Bush subsequently praised "Brownie," saying "You’re doing a heck of a job."

The trouble is that the Bushies are "doing a heck of a job" with spin, covering up their poor performance. In time, a substantial number of Americans may come to see George W. Bush as the Second Hero of New Orleans!

GOP Propagandists Renew Efforts to Blame 9-11 on Clinton

The current debate over whether the findings of a Pentagon anti-terrorism task force had been given to the 9-11 commission has resulted in renewed attacks on Bill Clinton by Republican journalists and radio shock jocks. The new information does demonstrate that the Pentagon knew Mohammed Atta was a potential threat. Rush Limbauigh has jumped from this to claiming Clinton must also have known about Atta.

The Clinton Justice Department is being blamed for erecting a wall prevented intelligence agencies from sharing information with thge FBI. In fact, the Justice Department was enforcing legislation passed before Clinton entered the White House.

The second charge, made by a retired Pentagon anti-terrorism expert, was that Clinton only considered Al Qaeda as a criminal justice problem. In fact, Clinton sent teams to assassinate bin Laden, sought unsuccessfully on two occasions to get the Joint Chiefs to approve military action against Al Qaeda, and unsuccessfully attacked an Al Qaeda base with missiles. There were other military actions taken, including keeping missile subs in position to launch more attacks.

The third claim is that Sudan offered to turn ocver Bin Laden but that the Clinton administration was not interested. The only attack on the former president worth consideration appeared in Vanity Fair, where it was alleged that the Clinton administration refused to even consider a Sudanese offer to turn over Osama bin Laden and vital information. When the Sudanese government offered to turn over Bin Laden in 1996 , the FBI told the administration that it lacked evidence to indict him and the matter was dropped. At that time, Bin Laden was not seen as a major problem. Indeed, the American intelligence community only began to take him seriously in 1995. The magazine’s claim was vigorously denied by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and other Clinton officials. They detailed repeated efforts to discuss Bin Laden with Sudan and obtain information. They denied blocking FBI efforts to deal separately with the Sudan. The Sudanese were anxious to improve their image if they could besmirch that of their American detractors in the process.

It is likely that the FBI was willing to assist in this process and that the State Department had been unwilling to let the bureau deal separately with the Sudanese. The original article left the impression that the administration had little interest in enlisting Sudanese cooperation, a claim that appears clearly false. The sources for the article were the Sudanese government and the first Bush administration’s ambassador to the Sudan. If the offers existed, they were made to the security apparatus and not to the State Department. It is clear that the Sudanese government has a long history of supporting terrorism and is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Christians.

Lacking a full investigation, it comes down to who is most believable. The Clinton administration had no reason to trust the Sudanese because the CIA believed it had evidence that, with the help of Osama bin Laden, it was attempting to manufacture biochemical weapons.

The Clinton administration in 1998 had sent cruise missiles to destroy a Sudanese pharmaceutical plant were materials for chemical weapons were being manufactured. The television networks showed film clips of the movie "Wag the Dog" and conveyed the impression that the action was intended to divert attention from Clinton’s scandals. It was widely reported that the plant only made medicines and the belief was that the strike Clinton had carried out the attacks to distract people from his impeachment problems. However, most intelligence professionals did not criticize Clinton’s decision. In 2002, evidence was made public that the administration was correct in its initial assessment. The CIA later found the precursor of VX nerve gas outside the plant. The plant was owned by Mohammed Hussein al Amoudi and Khalid Bin Mahfouz. Al Amoudi was later accused of financing Al Qaeda, and bin Mahfouz is Osama bin Laden’s brother in law and had a number of business ties to the Bushes.

After the Khartoum bombing, the Clinton administration "actually waged a vigorous campaign against bin Laden…." and doubled the counterterrorism budget. It eventually kept two Los Angeles class submarines in the Persian Gulf for the purpose of launcing missiles against terrorists.

Marc Rich, whose treatment of Clinton has generally been balanced, has suggested that Clinton’s main failure in battling terrorism was for not firing Louis Freeh, whose bureaucratic and traditional style as director of the FBI was considered by Clinton advisors to be a major impediment to dealing with terrorists. Two National Security Council staffers who worked on counter-terrorism have noted that Freeh’s FBI refused to cooperate with the NSC in anti-terrorism efforts and would not pass on information it had. Freeh detested Clinton, was busy investigating him, and even refused to obey the directives of Attorney General Janet Reno. Yet the firing of Freeh would have been the occasion for an enormous political firestorm as the Right venerated him for his relentless and highly partisan pursuit of Clinton and his actions, which undercut Attorney General Janet Reno, whom the Right also detested.

Despite these problems, the Clinton administration prevented the millennium bombing of the Los Angeles airport and several related bomb plots. The administration actively sought ways to thwart Bin Laden, and Janet Reno attempted to assist John O’Neill, the most effective FBI counter-terrorist operative. However, he faced determined opposition at the highest levels of the FBI and was eventually forced to resign. William Danvers, a former special national security advisor to Clinton, answered the criticisms of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, an aid to Vice President Richard Cheney, who disparaged the Clinton administration’s accomplishments in combating terror. He noted that Clinton doubled the anti-terrorism budget and succeeded in thwarting expected millennium attacks. Those who first bombed the World Trade Center were also caught on Clinton’s watch. He seemed to confirm reports that the second Bush administration had reduced the anti-terrorism efforts they found in place.

ERODING AMERICAN DEMOCRACY

The title of this article may seem alarmist, but the facts more than support it. Andrew Bacevich, a scholar not known for liberalism, says the American political "system is fundamentally corrupt and functions in ways inconsistent with the spirit of democracy."

Over three years, six Indian tribes, on the advice of Tom DeLay’s friend Jack Abramoff, gave $66 million to public relations man Michael Scanlon, formerly DeLay’s director oc communications. Abramoff was recently indicted in connection with other matters, and it remains to be seen if the Bush Justice Department will use this opportunity to probe his relationship with members of Congress.As Elizabeth Drew wrotes, everything is for sale in Washington. A source close to lobbyists reports, "There are no restraints now; business groups and lobbyists are going crazy—they’re in every room on Capitol Hill writing legislation. You can’t move on the Hill without giving money."

Yet the corruption Bacevich mentions runs much deeper than influence peddling and lining pockets. It involves a fundamental disrespect for democratic values. It is not confined to politicians. The touching , unrepublican reverence ordinary citizens pay a wartime president is not healthy. It has made it possible for an administration to take the nation into war based upon fake intelligence. The veneration of military prowess and belief that things American are naturally superior to those of other nations makes it easy for a regime to hollow out democracy at home and abroad. The abuse of detainees –- even children!--on our network of prisons is partly based on this false sense of superiority and the idea that military goals justify a multitude of grievous sins.

Contempt for democratic values and our political system is displayed in so many of the actions of those in power. Those who believe that the press serves a vital, though informal role in our system are alarmed by the Bush administration’s successful efforts to discourage investigative journalism and make the press dependent upon it for information. However, many do not believe that journalists serve the republic as watchdogs.

We should all be able to agree on the sanctity of the legislative process and the need that all elected representatives have ample opportunity to express their views and participate actively in framing legislation. In recent years, the House of Representatives has held open votes for long periods until people could be bribed or intimidated into changing their votes. Recently, it was held open an hour beyond the limit; two years ago it was 3 hours. When Speaker Jim Wright exceeded the limit by 15 minutes, there were many expressions of outrage. Legislative procedures, especially in the House, have been changed to prevent the minority from effectively proposing legislation or participating in the legislative process.

It is now not uncommon to exclude minority party members from committee meetings and even conference committees. Lobbyists sometimes are permitted to attend meeting from which elected representatives are excluded.. Legislation supported by 40% of the members of a chamber is frequently considered even at the committee level. Speaker Hastert has announced a new and unprecedented rule that only significant legislation approved by the majority of the Republican caucus can reach the floor.

Important legislation favored by the majority party in the House is usually considered under rules that forbid amendments. Likewise, decision s about when legislation reaches the follow of the House are often made in the wee hours of the morning so that only one party knows when a bill will come up for a vote. When the Democrats had power, the occasionally prevented amendments, but todays abuses far exceed what could have been imagined even in the 1980s, when Speaker Tip O’Neill and the majority occasionally stepped over the line.

The hollowing out of democracy can seen in the way political demonstrators are handled these days. In the 2004 campaign, demonstrators were kept large distances away from George W. Bush, being rounded up and placed in so-called "free speech areas." Recently, a woman who had lost her son in Iraq was kept four and a half miles from the president’s Crawford, Texas ranch. What does this say about out belief in free expression? That fact that so few ordinary Americans seem perfectly willing to accept these practices suggest that they share their leaders’ contempt for democratic values.

Waiting for Jeffersonian Democracy in Iraq

After the First Gulf War, General Colin Powell ridiculed the idea that if Saddam Hussein somehow disappeared "some Jeffersonian democrat is waiting in the wings.....there should be no illusions about the nature of that country or its society. " He added that if the US had gone onto Baghad, American soldiers [ would be patrolling the streets two years later still looking for Jefferson [ laughter]."

When the WMD pretext for the Second Gulf War finally collapsed, the George W. Bush administration and Secretary of State Powell replaced it with a new justification–preparing the way for a Jeffersonian Iraq. Amazingly, that idea quickly gained traction in our nation which was weaned on Jeffersonian and Wilsonian idealism. Never mind that Jeffersons’ belief that democracy was inevitable elsewhere was absolutely not predicated on exporting it by American troops.

Speaking of all of democracy’s advances in Iraq, Sy Hersh has just produced overwhelming evidence that the American administrators worked mightily to fix the election Our efforts reduced what would have been even greater Shiite dominance. They were partly counterbalanced by Shiite rigging. So much for the election that was a great triumph of democracy. It should be noted that the rigging was done as an off the books operation by retired security men as the administration failed to get the covert Congressional approval required by law.

Delegates are are now writing a new constitution for the Islamic Republic of Iraq, which states that its laws will be firmly based in the Koran. Voters should be ble to pass on it in October. Paragraph 16 recognizes the unique right of the Shiite Grand Ayatollah to instruct the state. Some think this could mean that his fatwas could overrule secular laws. The constitution contains provisions moving it away from a secular state, giving Shiite law a firm grip. One consequence of this is that the rights of women will be diminished.

Two years ago, respected Muslim scholar Tariq Ali wrote that it was likely that Iraq would eventually be divided into three pieces, the largest of which would be a Shiite state allied with Iran. As matters now stand, Iran and Iraq are now military allies, and Iraq is being ruled by people who had been exiles in Iran before the fall of Saddam. In other words, Iraq is allied with one of the two remaining members of the "axis of evil." For several decades, US planners have looked for a strong counterweight to Iran in the region. George W. Bush’s policies have strengthened Iran immeasurably.

The more worldly and cynical of us might be willing to justify the invasion if it gave the US a strong grip on Iraq’s oil. Bush’s neoconservative advisors clearly intended to sell the oil assets off to American firms, thus reducing the price of oil. Soon, the American oil industry prescribed an Iraqi state oil firm that would support OPEC. This would help American refiners by guaranteeing high prices, so the American administration in Baghdad reversed course. The US is building permanent bases athwart major pipelines, so the intention might be to control the flow of oil in that way.

The reasons for invading Iraq remain unclear. AS for Jeffersonian democracy, we have a long, long wait ahead of us.

Santorum and DeLay's K Street Project

When Republicans took control of Congress in 1995, Senator Rick Santorum and Tom DeLay initiated their K Street Project. The object was to force businesses to fire Democrat lobbyists and hire Republicans in their place, making K Street a Republican preserve. Republican members of Congress were asked to refuse to speak to Democrat lobbyists. An added incentive to hiring Republican lobbyists was that House committees were taking to allowing lobbyists to sit with them in drafting legislation. Indeed, it is likely that lobbyists often had more influence over legislation than Democratic Congressmen, who have had increasing problems getting legsilation to the floor. Indeed, they are frequently excluded from committee sessions.

When Republicans gained control of the White House, there was even more reason for businesses to comply with the K Street Strategy. Many in the executive branch will not speak to Democrat lobbyists. Elizabeth Drew has written recently in the New York Review of Books that the new alliance of Republicans and lobbyists has led to an unprecedented level of corruption in Washington. David Brooks, a Republican columnist, recently said on a PBS program, that the greatest threat to continuing Republican domination is the potential for corrupti0n built into this alliance.

In 2003, Congressman Michael Oxley's staff tolds the Investment Company Institute that his investigations of mutual funds would ease up if its top Democratic lobbyists were replaced with Republicans. The organization complied, and the investigation seemed to ramp down.

In 2004, the Motion Picture Association of America made a huge mistake in hiring Dan Glickman, a former Clinton cabinet member, as its chief lobbyist. Grover Norquist, a leading Republican operative, said this action was a studied insult. He added that he would not be satisfied until all the secretaries on K Street were Republicans. Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, has played a key role in helping DeLay and Santorum in identifying firms that have been tardy in firing Democrats and hiring Republicans. The House of Representatives retaliated by scrubbing a $ 1.5 billion tax break for the motion picture industry. Roll Call reported that "Santorum has begun discussing what the consequences are for the movie industry." The matter was resolved by Glickman keeping his job but MPAA hiring a bevy of Republicans, including the former PR person for Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Until 1995, lobbyists were not almost equal to congressmen in the legislative process.
They had an informal role, and often they possessed useful expertise. Though they now have far greater influence, they privately complain that their expertise is often of no value as they can only make suggestions that are in accord with prevailing ideology. They also note that every consideration and contact they make seems to require contributions or at least arranging luxury outings for members of Congress.

Please visit my other sites:
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter
http://www.ForwardAmerica2.BlogSpot.com on the media
http://www.AmericanImperium.BlogSpot.com on foreign policy

THE PENTAGON'S NEW BIBLE

Last year, the Pentagon advertised for a printer to produce 10,000 copies of a Bible that would contail "Army provided photographs and text materials." ( For the advertisement: www1.eps.gov/servlet/DocumentsR/1051015).

We have no idea what the pictures or text were about. To be charitable, we can assume that the Bushies were not adding to the scriptures. The only other alternative is that they were supplying interpretive material, which is not the business of government! Maybe they were explaining away Christ's teachings against violence. Who knows?

It is known that the Bibles were intended for the use of the U.S. Special Operations Command. The publishing contract was awarded to International bible Society in Colorado.

Steve Peacock, an activist in Binghamton, New York, filed a Freedom of Information request to gather more information and learn what had been added to the Bible. Rather than release any information, the DOD cancelled the purchase order, claiming it was no longer obliged to honor the FOIA request. Peacock disagrees with this interpretation of the law but notes that the Pentagon bas exceeded the numbers of days that can ellapse before it must at least acknowledge that he had appealed the original decision not to provide the information.

For a piece on religious problems at the Air Force Academy, thee the religion page at
http://mysite.verizon.net/resox2t6/thelakeeriereporter/

For a short piece on current US policy genocide in Dafur go to
http://www. AmericanImperium.BlogSpot.com

FLIPPING ELECTIONS

Tallahasee computer programmer Clinton Curtis has testified that before the 2000 election Tom Feeney, a Congressman and former Speaker of the Florida House, asked him to develop software to "flip an election" without being detected. Feeney, who often lobbied for Curtis’s employer had been Jeb Bush’s running mate in 1994. Feeney wanted a program that could be accessed with no additional equipment of software. The software firm also did work for NASA, the Defense Department, and the Florida Department of Transportation.

Curtis was a lifelong Republican and at first assumed that Feeney needed the prototype as part of a plan to unearth Democratic skulduggery. Then he learned that the software was needed to change the vote in southern Florida. As the meeting with Curtis and three others occurred in October, 2000, it can only be assumed that the plan was to use the software in 2002 and thereafter.

After the 2000 election, Feeney bragged to Curtis that an elimination list had been used to prevent some Democrats from voting and that the Florida state police had been positioned to prevent some blacks from getting to the polls. Curtis wrote the program and then quit his job. .1
Curtis landed a job at the Florida Department of Transportation. He soon poked a hornet’s nest by showing that his former employer was billing the department for services it did not provide. In 2002, he and another whistleblower were fired.

Feeney thought the patrol had prevented 25% of African Americans from voting. This writer was there in 2000 and estimates that around 5% of blacks were frightened into not voting.

After losing his job, he went to the press with his story. It included the claim that one illegal immigrant. Eventually, the government accused the illegal immigrant with there was somehow spying. with sending guidance chips for the Hellfire anti-tank missile to Red China. The St. Petersburg Times reported that Curtis passed a polygraph administered by a recognized Florida expert.

Raymond Lemme, a Florida DOT investigator, who was looking into the termination and related matters, turned up dead on July 1, 2003 at a Valdosta,Georgia motel. The death was ruled a suicide, there was neither an autopsy nor a thorough investigation. Lemme’s last comment to Curtis was that he was sure the investigation would lead all the way to the top. We do not know if by "top" he meant the White House or the governor's mansion.

How Fair Was the Election of 2004

While the 2004 vote was still being cast, a possibly tipsy New York Republican Representative Peter King appeared on the White House lawn with a blue plastic drinking cup in his hand. He told a documentary film-maker, "Its over! The election’s over-we won." When asked what that meant, he added, " It’s all about but the counting, and we’ll take care of the counting." King is one the better members of Congress and he seemed to be disquieted this knowledge.The election victory of 2004 violated two long-standing rules of thumb.( 1) Last minute undecided votes usually do not break for the incumbent. (2) An incumbent whose approval rating falls below 50% usually loses. These rules are not written in stone. Questions should be raised about the 2004 election because the results are not statistically probable and there was much evidence of gaming.

Recently, Christopher Hitchens published a piece in the March 2003 Vanity Fairentitled "Ohio's Od Numbers" and argues that the Federal Election Commission should take a careful look at the strange outcomes in Ohio. A sharp critic of John Kerry, Hitchens only looked at a few obvious problems and did not view the outcome from the standpoint of a statistician. He also gave full weight to the Republican argument that the Ohio election could not have been fixed because that would have required the cooperation of a significant number of people.There was less physical intimidation of minority voters in 2004 than in 2000, but there were probably even more efforts to suppress the minority vote. There were was less irrefutable evidence of efforts to almost openly fix machines, but those that did turn up almost always favored the GOP.

Almost gone was the shifting large numbers of votes to obscure minor party candidates for president. We can no longer expect to see the obvious and huge shifting of votes that occurred in Valusha County and elsewhere in Florida in 2000 or the unauthorized reprogramming of a large number of electronic machines, as occurred in southern Georgia in 2002. However, the election was replete with the kinds of anomalies and strange, unpredictable outcomes that alarmed statisticians and seasoned election observers.The election was unusual because there was such a great disparity between the exit polls and the actual results. The exit polls called for a Kerry victory , but the actual results gave Bush another term in the White House. In 42 of 51 states ( and District of Columbia), the states moved more toward Bush than the exit polls indicated. When it was clear that the exit polls appeared to be very wrong, the Edison and Mitofsky exit poll results were "rebalanced" early in the morning of November 3 so they came closer to actual results. An important assumption in the "reweighing" was that Bush got every vote he garnered in 2000; no one died and no one changed his mind.

This data was published by CNN and a CALTECH/MIT study, based on the modified figures, pronounced that the disparity between the exit polls and actual results was not great enough to warrant further inquiry. The actual exit poll data became available two weeks later and great disparities or "red shifts" in favor of Bush. In Delaware it was 10%,in New Hampshire 9.8%, in North Carolina 8%; in Ohio 6.2%, and Florida 6%. (2)In ten of the eleven battleground states, the differences between tallied and exit poll margin favored Bush. For two generations, the media’s exit polls have never been more than a tenth of a percent off. Freeman and Mitteldorf noted that there was a huge 10.0 average within precinct error in precincts that went at least 80% for Bush. On the other hand, the WPE for similar Kerry precincts was 0.3. Even Republican consultant Dick Morris told FOX News that "Exit polls are almost never wrong." The discrepancies were far outside the allowances for random error and chance. Statisticians have concluded that the chances of the wide variances of 2004 occurring were less that one in a thousand.

The chances that Kerry only received 47.1% of the vote in Florida are only three in a thousand. The best explanation Gallup pollsters could come up with was that Kerry people were much more willing to participate in exit polls than Bush backers. This became the official explanation of the pollsters. Yet 56% of those approached completed the surveys in Bush precincts, compared to 53% in Kerry bastions. (3) In states where a variety of means were used to count votes, there was no meaningful disparity between exit poll results and actual tabulations. However, there was a great difference between the exit polls and reported results in states were electronic programs were used to register and count votes. (4) The three corporations that control the manufacture and maintenance of electronic voting machines and the programs that tabulate votes are controlled by people with strong GOP ties. Moreover, their vote tabulating programs are easily hackable.

The many statistical anomalies of 2004 almost all benefitted the GOP, and they were a sort that could not be readily investigated. Indeed, Republican computer security expert Chuck Herrin noted that they "benefitted us 100% of the time." In the election of 2004, the electoral count was settled favor of George W. Bush in Ohio and Florida, both states where electronic voting and tabulation was predominant. A Quantitative Methods Research Team at the University of California at Berkeley examined the Florida election and found that "a county’s use of electronic voting resulted in a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush " and that the random chances of this happening were "less than once in a thousand...." They conservatively estimated that Bush received between 130,000 and 260,000 more votes than could be statistically expected." Some voting machines there actually counted votes backward against Kerry. Bush carried the state by 5% , but lost it by 2% according to the exit polls. From a common sense but not rigorous statistician’s perspective, the results appear even more difficult to believe.. Among the 57 counties that used vote-scanning technology to count votes, 29 had been overwhelmingly Democratic. This time then became Bush bastions. The GOP gained 128.45% in those counties, and the Democrats lost 21%. In Liberty County, which is 88% Democratic, Bush gained 700%. Where optional scan technology was not used, voting followed predictable patterns. In Broward County, voting workers said there were boxes of uncounted absentee votes that were later removed from the court house. Before the election there, 50,000 applications for absentee ballots somehow got lost in the postal system. 6Analyzing the races in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania ( where a Senate seat was involved), Professor Ron Baiman thought the discrepancy between exit polls and tabulated votes could only occur once in 155,000,000 times.

The race was especially close in Ohio, where Bush eventually was declared the winner by less than 130,000 votes. There was not one elected statewide official who was a Democrat, and the secretary of state, J. Kenneth Blackwell, who counted the votes, was the Bush campaign chairman. Every possible legal and marginally legal device was used against Kerry. . In Franklin County there was a pattern of taking voting machines out of strongly Democratic precincts so that the lines would be longer. There were 580 absentee votes in Trumbull county which could not be matched with voters in the registration list. If this were extrapolated statewide, it would come to 62, 513 fraudulent absentee votes. A former ES&S employee was allowed to tamper with the vote counting computer in Auglaize County on October 16. In Warren County( about 20 miles northeast of Cincinnati–Kings Island), the court house was locked down so that reporters could not observe counting. In the past, there was room for the media in the court house during elections. It is important to know this is one of the last counties in Ohio to close its polling places. That county had a 33% increase in votes cast over 2000. In Perry County, more votes were cast than people who signed the register as on site voters or absentees/ In Butler County, the Kerry-Edward ticket ran far behind other Democrats. In the Columbus area, there were 4,258 votes in a Gahanna precinct and 260 for Kerry. Fortunately this was corrected. However, there were only 800 voters there. Miami County was very slow counting its votes and only released its complete total when almost the entire state had been heard from. Bush picked up an amazing 19,000 more votes than in 2000 in this rural county. , Kerry carried 31.38% of the voter, compared to 36.38 for Gore.. The county boasted an almost impossible increase in turnout, with the new votes shared between the candidates in these proportions. Some precincts had nearly 98% turnouts. In Mahoning County, many voters reported that they attempted to vote for Kerry on the video machines, but the vote kept turning up for Bush. Some might recall that this is Youngstown and naturally wonder is some kind of corruption were involved. In Lucas County where Toledo is located, , numerous machines consistently malfunctioned. Outside of Xenia, polling officials applied special standards to prevent black students from Wilberforce University

The Ohio recount was also marred by allegations of fraud. Triads Corporation, that services the punch card voting system in 41 counties was found to be sending people to court houses to prepare computers for recounts. The clearest case of abuse was in Hocking County, where Michael from Triad appeared to brief workers on "tricky" questions attorneys might ask and to work with tabulator and computer/ He asked which precincts had been designated for recount and then worked on the computer, telling the employees not to turn it off as the correct results were then on display. He also helped employees post a "cheat sheet" to help them with the recount. The deputy election commissioner who blew the whistloe on this conduct was subsequently fired by Hocking County, which was presured to do so by Secretary J. Kenneth Blackwell.In Lucas County, a Diebold technician reprogrammed machines prior to the recount, and in suburban Sylvania Precinct 3 the programming card was reprogrammed..Voting officials in Shelby County admitted they had destroyed critical materials, making a recount there impossible to the recount, Secretary of State Blackwell ordered voting officials in the counties to prohibit others from examining poll registers, a violation of Ohio law which made it impossible for Democratic observers to analyze the election or make sense of the recount.

Strange occurances seemed to mark the recount in many of the counties of northwestern Ohio. Moreover, Blackwell did not impound a single machine or computer, so a trustworthy recount was impossible. Moreover, he refused to appear before a House committee investigating the Ohio outcome even though its chairman was a Republican who would have treated him gently. In the same spirit, the Ohio Atgtorney General has demanded that the State Supreme Court discipline four attorneys who unsuccessfully litigated in a quest for a more thorough recount. Much more could be said about the abnormalities in the Ohio recount. One wonders why any rigging was even necessary in view of the fact that Ohio was certain to certify the original results.Before the election, many efforts were made to hold down the minority vote.The Republican Secretary of State in Ohio attempted to invalidate voter registration forms in Cleveland because they were not printed on pound stock paper.9 A quarter of a million African Americans in Ohio received letters warning them that they could not vote; among the reasons given were being registered by the NAACP.

Misleading pamphlets were also sent to Milwaukee blacks in an effort to discourage their voting. John Perzel, speaker of the Pennsylvania House of representatives, openly stated it was necessary to suppress the black vote in Philadelphia. 11In Las Vegas, Nevada , the Republicans hired Voters Outreach of America to register voters. The firms managers were caught destroy Democratic registration forms. Employees said they were only being paid for Republican signature. In Oregon, the same firm was discovered to be repeating this performance. However, there it sometimes used public libraries, claiming to be official registrars. Its employees were reported to have told University of Oregon students that by registering as Republicans they were somehow fighting the sexual abuse of children. Similar problems appeared in West Virginia.. 12 In Florida, election officials tried to remove another 22,000 Blacks from the voter roles, even though they were not felons. Republican Secretary of State Glenda Hood disqualified an additional 10,000 registration forms of likely Democrats because they had checked in only one place rather than two that they were citizens of the United States.

Former President Jimmy Carter, whose center has monitored elections around the world, noted that the process in Florida did not meet international standards in part because it is operated by people holding "strong political biases," and he predicted that the 204 Florida election would again be characterized by irregularities. 13The usual efforts of those in power to prevent some groups from voting were much in evidence. By placing outmoded equipment in black precincts, the chance of having many "spoiled votes" was greatly increased. In the 47 Dayton, Ohio precincts that went heavily for Kerry, the spoilage rate was 5.16%, compared to 1.31% for the rest of Montgomery County. This is partly why blacks have a 800 % greater chance of not having their votes counted than whites. Similarly, placing too few machines in black precincts created great lines and discouraged people from voting. The situation was so blatant in Ohio, that the very Republican Columbus Dispatch felt obliged to report on it. It found that the number of machines in Democratic parts of Franklin county were reduced by 17 while the Republican precincts received eight more machines.

In Democratic Cuyahoga and Summit Counties, old machines were used and the average number of votes per machine was less than half those per machine in the Columbus area. The provisional ballot, was a new technique made possible by HAVA, allowed people to provisionally vote if they showed up at the wrong place or broke some other regulation. These votes were usually not counted . Even Hitchens, a sharp critic of Kerry, noted that the massive bottlenecks "had a tendency to occur in working-class and, shall we just say, nonwhite precincts." Many people simply gave up and did not bother to complete the provisional ballots that officials eventually decided to offer them.

In Gambier, Ohio, there was only working machine where Kenyon College students voted. Many of them gave up and refused to bother with the provisional ballots because they believed the paper ballots would not be counted. These techniques were widely used, especially in Ohio, and boosted the number of uncounted votes to the 3,000,000 mark In addition there were 95,000 lost votes in Franklin County, 12,000 in Mahoning, and 6,400 in Warren County. In some southwest white Republican counties,, C. Ellen Connally, an unfunded African American running for Ohio Supreme court, somehow ran far ahead of John Kerry. 14 In two predominantly black Cleveland precincts, this also occurred. The normal patteren in presidential election years is that the highest number of votes would be at the top of the ticket, and that there would be a sharp drop-off thereafter.Social scientists are supposed to be pragmatists, so it is probably unfair to complain about efforts by a political campaign to suppress the opposition vote. Similarly, extremely stringent regulations for the identification of some voters and increased efforts to eliminate legitimate black voters as part of programs to purge felons might be considered benefits of incumbency.

Perhaps some would draw the line at capriciously changing voting place locations or how many new machines are placed in black precincts might cross the line for many realists. If all the above were considered part of rigging election, many would be justified in concluding that John Kerry should be sworn in as President in 2005. But leaving these things aside, we still have results that defy any reasonable statistical or common sense analysis. Whether the election of 2004 should have gone to John Kerry cannot be established, even though a shift of 65,000 votes in Ohio would have made the difference. Electronic machines and computerized tabulation systems are extremely difficult to audit and there is very little possibility that this situation will change. We can expect more elections like this in the future. One piece there provides extensive background information on the potential for fraud offered by electronic voting machines and computerized counting systems

.1. To view the film clip---http://homepage.mac.com/duffyb/Movies/peterking.mov (Some who viewed this film clip concluded he may have been a bit tipsy.)2. Alastair Thompson, "Complete US Exit Poll Date Confirms Net Suspicions," Scoop.com ( November 17, 2004)3. Steven F. Freeman, "The Unexplained Exit Poll Discrepancy," (November from voting. 10, 2004) stfreema@sas.upenn.edu; Jonathan D. Simon and Ron P. Baiman, "Who Won the Popular Vote? An Examination of the Comparative Validity of Exit Poll and Vote Count Data,"The Free Press.com ( December 29, 2004)4. Michael Meacher, "Did Dubbya rig the election?" New Statesman (November 29, 2004), 22-235. Herrin, "Empathy Training for Compassionate Conservatives,"6. "UC Berkeley Research Team Sounds ‘Smoke Alarm’ for Florida E-Vote Count," (November 18, 2004) ucdata.berkeley.edu; Sean Sabatini, "Exit Polls and Vote Fraud: A user-Friendly Explanation," OPEDNews.com( undated); "Countdown," MSNBC.com ( November 3, 2004)7. John Conyers and others to. Kenneth Blackwell ( December 2, 2004), Truthout.com; Richard Hayes Phillips, "Hacking the Vote in Miami County," The Free Press.com (December 25, 2004).8. William Rivers Pitt, "Proof of Ohio election Fraud Exposed," Truthout.com ( December 15, 2004); Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld, and Harvey Wasserman, "American Democracy Hangs by a Thread in Ohio," Yurca Report.com ( December 15, 2004); Toledo Blade, January 5, 20059. "The Poll Tax Updated," The New York Times, October 7, 2004)10. ABCNews.com (October 31, 2004)11. Bob Herbert, "Days of Shame," New York Times (November 1, 2004)12. PBS.com (October 13, 2004); Laura Kurtzman, "GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge," San Jose Mercury (October 14, 2004); Adrienne Packer, "Voter Fraud Alleged," The Las Vegas Review-Journal (October 14, 2004); Associated Press and KGW News, "KGW Report Prompts Oregon Voter Fraud Investigation." (October 13, 2004)13. Jimmy Carter, "Still Seeking a Fair Florida Vote," Washington Post (September 27, 2004); Kurtzman, "GOP Paid Firm Faces Voter Fraud Charge."