March 27, 2004
An Emergency Call to Arms
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Eric A. Smith
Hot Damn! Design
81-03-3959-5371
snowdog@juno.ocn.ne.jp
(Please distribute widely.)
An Emergency Call-to-Arms:
A Five-Step Battle Plan for YOUR Future
This is a call to arms to you -- as an American and a custodian of your nation's future. Please act as if your life depends on it -- it well might.
We have been led down a dark, perilous road.
The journey has touched us all, from mothers and fathers burying children in a war over nonexistent WMD, to firefighters and policemen promised vital funds only to be cheated and asked to work for free. Millions of Americans have been cut loose as corporations exploit foreign workers on the cheap and CEOs gorge themselves on riches unprecedented in history. While Americans take second and even third jobs just feed their families, the Bush Administration has poured America's wealth into the greedy hands of defense contractors and tax-dodging megacorporations, notorious companies like (#1 Bush donator Kenneth Lay's) Enron or Cheney's wartime ripoff-artists at Halliburton.
Our environment, safety, economy, national security, labor protection and Constitutionally-guaranteed rights have all been gutted and left to die in a worker-hostile economy.
NOW WE FIGHT BACK.
Here's what we're facing:
This November, the Bush election machine has more than three times the spending power of its opponents(1)
And they are fighting dirty, just as they did in 2000, when they purged Florida voter rolls(2), rioted to stop recounts(3), barred citizens from voting (ibid) and even threatened the Vice President and his family on their front lawn (4).
This year, through gerrymandering, data theft from Congressional computers, impeachments and recess judicial appointments, they are trying to consolidate their unprecedented power. And they have a special election-season surprise in store for us as well -- as the AFL-CIO argued before the Supreme Court last December(5), the Bushites have MADE IT A CRIME FOR THIRD PARTIES TO CRITICIZE THE PRESIDENT OR SAY THINGS TO INFLUENCE THE ELECTION during the election's most critical phase:
"This blackout will become national in scope on July 31, 30 days before the August 30-September 2 Republican National Convention . . . and it will then continue without interruption throughout the remaining 60 days until the November 2 election. Thus, from July 31, 2004 until the election, it will be a crime for a union, corporation, or incorporated non-profit organization to pay to broadcast any 'reference' to the President by 'name,' 'photograph,' 'drawing' or other 'unambiguous' means anywhere in the United States." (6) [Emphasis added. -v]
They are ruthless, and will not concede victory without a vicious fight. Expect the outlawing of gay marriage to "divide and conquer", marginalize opponents and consolidate support from the religious right, a base estimated to be 30 million strong (7). Expect Ralph Nader to syphon off votes yet again. Expect the Supreme Court to halt recounts again. Expect a "surprise" discovery of WMD even after Blix, David Kay and Iraq's scientists saying they were all destroyed. (8) Expect the "suprise" capture or "destruction" of Bin Laden conveniently close to the election (9). Expect lots of scary terrorism warnings and perhaps even an attack. (10) General Tommy Franks has even suggested a second 9-11-scale attack will lead to martial law in America (11). [Emphasis added. -v]
None of this should deter you; remember it was the same group (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Baker, Bush Sr., Perle, etc.) that armed and funded Hussein and Bin Laden in the first place. The blood of our dead is therefore on their hands. [Emphasis added. -v]
We must not underestimate the ruthlessness of those willing to start an international war based on known and transparent lies -- virtually against the will of the entire planet. Make no mistake; they are willing to throw away American lives in their quest for global dominion. And if you rise up and oppose them, you may be bullied, harassed and threatened, perhaps even by the FBI.(12) YOU MUST NOT LET THIS DETER YOU. WE MUST NOT BE BULLIED INTO LETTING THEM SEIZE POWER AGAIN! [Emphasis added. -v]
For example, from the NY Times: "When a Times editorial writer dropped in on one Palm Beach precinct where there were reports of malfunctioning machines, county officials called the police to remove him."(ibid)
And here we come to the deep, dark heart of the matter: [Emphasis added. -v]
This year 28% of the vote (and counting) will be tallied on electronic voting machines or scanners, which have been repeatedly hacked and can be used to fix an election -- all without a trace. Below you'll find a link to the diagrammed, step-by-step report of how e-vote activist Bev Harris hacked one(13). If you think this is exaggeration, please follow the links listed below, where everything has been well-documented and by the NY Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC, CBS, the BBC, etc. (14)
Once paperless, effortlessly hackable (10) voting machines have been installed, the situation will be PERMANENT -- we will never know or be able to prove if an election has been stolen. And if it HAS -- those who have stolen it CAN NEVER BE VOTED OUT. And without the fear of voter reprisal, whoever takes advantage of such a situation could do literally anything they wanted and NEVER LOSE POWER. It will mean the end of Democracy. And if you work for an activist group, it will certainly mean the end of your organization.
We have less than six months to prepare to fight the biggest power grab in human history.
Do your part.
Help save America.
There will not be a second chance.
A 5-STEP BATTLE PLAN:
I. LOBBYING (20 minutes approximately)
Tell your representatives to support Bills H.R. 2239 and ESPECIALLY 1980 (14)
Online e-petitions:
http://www.mediafordemocracy.us/campaign/evote
http://www.truemajority.org/actionregister/
http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item=2821
http://www.verifiedvoting.org
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/petition.cfm?itemid=14993
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/348035553?ts=1079111375&sign[partner_userID]=304336170&sign[memberID]=304336170&sign[partnerID]=1
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/cleanvote.html
Congress http://www.senate.gov/
Toll free: 1-800-839-5276
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/State elections boards
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/htdocs/dcforum/DCForumID29/47.html
State Attorneys General
http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php
State Election Officials
http://www.nased.org/ Members, Natl. Assoc. of County Recorders, Election
Officials and Clerks
http://www.nacrc.org/leadership/st_coord.htm
Penelope Bonsall, national director of the Office of Election Administration
Office of Election Administration
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, NW
Washington, DC 20463
vss@fec.gov
(202) 694-1095 (phone)
(202) 219-8500 (fax)
II. MEDIA BLITZ (one to three hours approximately)
Write a letter and email or fax it to Radio and TV stations, newspapers and magazines in your area:
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/News/
http://newslink.org
http://www.cantufind.com/american_newspapers.htm
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Networks/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Radio/Formats/Talk_Radio/Stations/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/Cable/
http://dmoz.org/Arts/Television/Networks/
http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Broadcasting/Information/
National Media Contacts:
CBS Evening News
212-975-3691
evening@cbsnews.com
NBC Nightly News
212-664-4971
nightly@nbc.com
Peter Jennings : ABC World News Tonight
Tel : (212) 456-4025, Fax : (212) 456-2381
PeterJennings@abcnews.com
Washington Post :
abramowitz@washpost.com, colemanm@washpost.com,
letters@washpost.com, hadarm@washpost.com,
kingc@washpost.com, milbankd@washpost.com,
New York Times:
nytnews@nytimes.com, oped@nytimes.com,
president@nytimes.com, publisher@nytimes.com,
society@nytimes.com, washington@nytimes.com,
web-editor@nytimes.com, letters@nytimes.com
USA Today: editor@usatoday.com
Houston Chronicle: viewpoints@chron.com
San Francisco Chronicle: letters@sfchronicle.com
Los Angeles Times: letters@latimes.com
Chicago Tribune: ctc-TribLetter@Tribune.com
Washington Post: letters@washpost.com
Newsday: letters@newsday.com
New York Daily News: voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
CNN HeadLine News executives :
cameron.baird@turner.com, dave.willis@turner.com,
bill.schneider@turner.com ,
james.broyles@turner.com, jason.evans@turner.com,
lou.dobbs@turner.com, moneyline@cnnfn.com,
kathy.slobogin@turner.com, paul.varian@turner.com,
judy.fortin@turner.com, bill.galvin@turner.com,
susan.jalali@turner.com, kurt.kasting@turner.com,
tim.mallon@turner.com, wade.mckinney@turner.com,
jerry.mihoch@turner.com, stephanie.minter@turner.com,
dennis.newman@turner.com, alan.schrack@turner.com,
rolando.santos@turner.com, steve.shusman@turner.com,
jennifer.c.thomas@turner.com
USA Today :
editor@usatoday.com, fanklam@usatoday.com,
jbacon@usatoday.com lbranson@usatoday.com,
dcolton@usatoday.com
Los Angeles Times :
dean.baquet@latimes.com, op-ed@latimes.com,
john.carroll@latimes.com, janet.clayton@latimes.com,
letters@latimes.com, latmag@latimes.com,
marjorie.miller@latimes.com, john.puerner@latimes.com,
james.rainey@latimes.com, bill.stall@latimes.com
REUTERS :
michel.gelbart@reuters.com, eddie.evans@reuters.com,
editor.reuters@reuters.com, daniel.grebler@reuters.com,
stephen.jukes@reuters.com, reshma.kapadia@reuters.com,
andrew.mitchell@reuters.com, dick.satran@reuters.com,
david.schlesinger@reuters.com, eddie.evans@reuters.com,
washington.daybook.newsroom@reuters.com,
miami.newsroom@reuters.com, michel.gelbart@reuters.com,
boston.newsroom@reuters.com, toronto.newsroom@reuters.com,
mexicocity.newsroom@reuters.com
Associated Press:
info@ap.org, msilverman@ap.org,
gjohnson@ap.org, hjung@ap.org,
tkorte@ap.org, sthomsen@ap.org,
etompson@ap.org, ntrott@ap.org,
rtanner@ap.org, mtighe@ap.org,
kathleen.carroll@ap.org, dcrary@ap.org,
adinnocenzio@ap.org, jaffleck@ap.org,
mfeldman@ap.org, paula.froke@ap.org,
tfuentez@ap.org, kgazlay@ap.org,
chanley@ap.org, bharpaz@ap.org,
lheinzerling@ap.org, rherschaft@ap.org,
hitalie@ap.org, sjacobsen@ap.org,
ajesdanun@ap.org, tkent@ap.org
III. WITNESS E-VOTE EVALUATIONS (one afternoon)
Ask your elections board (about any e-voting purchase evaluations meetings to be held in your district. As a member of the voting public, it is your legal right to attend as a witness, although, out of convenience, they may try to avoid giving you the information. Insist on your rights.
If you do attend as a witness, you may well be a victim of intimidation tactics. Insist on voter-verified paper ballots. Bev Harris has written comprehensive answers to arguments you will hear. DO NOT BACK DOWN OR BE INTIMIDATED BY CIVIL SERVANTS -- they are your EMPLOYEES, paid by YOUR TAXES:
From Bev Harris, http://www.BlackBoxVoting.Org
Assertion: "Upgrading the printer already in the (Diebold) machine costs money"
Fact: Diebold has stated in writing that their pre-installed internal printers are sufficient to generate a voter-verified paper trail.
Assertion: "The paper is very expensive"
Fact: Thermal paper is the cheapest made, and with an estimated maximmum of 300 people voting at each touch screen a LARGE precinct may have seven touch screens, but many have just two or three, it might cost $15 per precinct to print those ballots.
Assertion: "The paper won't last"
Fact: If the report to be provided by the machine will last the required amount of time, the ballots will too, if printed on the same paper. The printer is there to report totals at the polling place.
Assertion: "The machines will jam"
Fact: The printer is similar to models used in supermarkets and WalMart. Remember: the total number of transactions will be about 300. Do supermarket and WalMart printers jam every 15 sales? No. They process thousands of printouts without jamming.
Assertion: "The ink will run out"
Fact: There is no ink in a thermal printer
Question: "If a paper ballot record doesn't match a machine record, which is the legal vote?"
Fact: The voter-verified paper must trump the machine unless a mechanical defect or fraud is shown, because it is a physical record seen and verified by thousands of individual voters, whereas the machine is bits and bytes that can be changed by a single technician!
Assertion: "Paper ballot systems have been tampered with"
Fact: Yes, and machines have been frequently wrong as well. Do not allow sidetracking of the discussion or assertions that you are "against electronic voting" -- no, we want them to put paper in a printer and use it for auditing.
Assertion: "Officials won't know what to do with paper ballots and new laws must be written."
Fact: Laws and procedures set up for optical scans are applicable.
Assertion: "A paper trail will only lead to demands for more complicated and stringent auditing"
Fact: Yes, it will. We're asking for that anyway, with optical scanning. It is still cheap and efficient compared to many of the changes currently being implemented to accommodate the sales of more touchscreen machines.
Question: "Why use machines at all if you're demanding paper ballots?"
Fact: Voting machines are helpful for the visually impaired
Assertion: "Paper ballots prevent the visually impaired from voting"
Facts: Wheelchair-assisted voters can use a touch screen with the same efficiency whether or not there is a paper printout, and the visually-impaired can be provided with headphones for these machines. Nor does a paper printout hinder their ability to vote.
Alternatives DO exist to those Diebold, Sequoia and ES&S machines which are operated by heavily partisan CEOs and are designed to operate WITHOUT a paper trail. Those Diebold types' code and components are not allowed to be examined.
Avante Systems has a machine that shows a printout through a glass screen. After the voter confirms it is correct, the paper ballot is dropped into a storage box so it can be checked against the machine totals and the AccuPoll system has a scanner that can pass over the printed ballot to verify votes.
Sequioa machines can be attached to normal printers. If your group has some at its disposal, by all means, bring them.
Alternative, secure e-voting machines you can suggest to your elections officials:
http://www.accupoll.com/
http://www.aitechnology.com/avantetech/home.html
IV. VOLUNTEER ELECTIONS MONITORING (three days approximately, including preliminary training)
Vootewatch is organizing election monitor volunteers here:
http://www.votewatch.us/forum/register.php?
Bev Harris has outlined a point-by-point strategy on specifically what to look for when monitoring electronic voting machines. It is also recommended that you either download her free e-book "Black Box Voting", or better yet, purchase it here: http://www.blackboxvoting.org
CITIZEN WATCHDOGS:
What to look for and report -- Let's get good at this before November!
Optical-scan systems and absentee ballots:
We have information that all systems recognize carbon-containing marks (soft lead pencil). Some DO NOT recognize all inks. You may want to bring a soft lead pencil to the polling place with you to mark your optical-scan ballots.
All Diebold counties (AccuVote and AccuTouch are Diebold brands) -- Demand that the poll workers print a report and post a copy at the polling place at the end of the day, whether they are required to or not. All Diebold machines, both touch-screen and optical-scan, contain internal printers and have the ability to print a polling place results report. This takes 60 seconds and costs nothing, and is an important check and balance to compare with the county results from the GEMS system, which we believe to contain security flaws. Votes should not change from the polling place to the county.
Report any instance of mismatched polling place/county tabulations here. Do NOT accept the excuse that they won't match because early votes, absentee, provisional, or challenge votes were added into the polling place totals. That is called "co-mingling" the data and is not an acceptable record-keeping practice. Additional categories of votes must be accounted for as separate line items.
Sequoia touch-screens do not have an internal printer. A printer can easily be hooked up with a serial port. If you see printers, demand a polling place report.
Watch for any "wandering vote tallies" on election night, especially if any votes go DOWN. (Yes, this has been known to happen).
Late poll openings: Report these immediately and we'll try to get cameras there. This is a form of vote suppression, often occurring in minority areas.
Late vote results: Report late incoming tallies. These can be indicative of the county trying to resolve voting machine anomalies before filing reports.
Observe how many cords come in and out of the voting machines. Report any evidence of networking the machines together. Report any time you see more than a simple power cord plugged in while the election is in progress.
Wardrive election sites. See if you can pick up wireless signals either during or after the election. Wireless communication is not permitted. Also, report any use of cell phones for vote transfers, which is also not permitted.
Election workers: Report the procedures used for training if they seem insecure. For example, we have already had reports that in Georgia, some poll workers were told to take voting machines home after training; Georgia flag artwork was uploaded right before the election; and other unwise and insecure procedures were followed.
Go visit the polling place at the end of the day and see how secure it is. We had reports recently of machines left in the polling place unattended.
Felony watch: In some states, IT IS A FELONY for technicians who are not sworn elections officials to touch the vote database in any way, shape or form after votes have been cast. In fact, if you look at Chapter 13 of Black Box Voting, the San Luis Obispo incident was probably illegal (Diebold tech Sophia Lee was tied to a live vote database that appeared on the Internet five hours before the polls closed).
Watch for statistical anomalies. Look at everything. Time is of the essence, as these analyses take some time and there are only a few days before the election is certified.
V. LEGAL CHALLENGES (indeterminate)
Author Lynn Landes has questioned the constitutionality of voting machines.
http://www.ecotalk.org/VotingMachinesUnconstitutional.htm
If your organization has the wherewithal to raise a legal challenge on these (or other grounds) here are some resources below:
Election campaign and civil rights lawyers listed for every city:
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Election%20Campaign%20&%20Political%20Law
http://lawyers.findlaw.com/lawyer/practice/Civil%20Rights
Institute for Justice:
http://www.ij.org/index.shtml
Center for Indiviual Rights:
http://www.cir-usa.org/intake.html
Class actions:
http://www.bigclassaction.com/civil_rights.html
Southeastern Legal Foundation:
http://southeasternlegal.org/
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorneys:
gwen@eff.org
jason@eff.org
owlswan@eff.org
wendy@eff.org
tien@eff.org
fred@eff.org
Other challenges:
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/local_news_04d49255058760a400d8.html
http://www.electionguardians.org/actions.htm
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/dieboldlawsuit.pdf
Pax Christi is also organizing an international group of elections monitors. More information here:
http://www.paxchristiusa.org/news_events_more.asp?id=887
REFERENCES
1 (GOP:$115,667,827 ; Dems:$44,175,502).
http://www.opensecrets.org/parties/index.asp
2. Greg Palast, Harper's Magazine "The Great Florida Ex-Con Game"
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=122&row=2
3 a."Unprecedented" -- internet preview of the film
http://www.unprecedented.org/UnprecedentedPreview.htm
3 b. Lynn Landes: "Mission Impossible -- Federal Observers & Voting Machines"
http://www.ecotalk.org/FederalObservers.htm
4. Barabara Walters interview "The Note":
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/791744/posts
5.McConnell vs the Federal Election Commission
http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/1637/
6. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0404/hentoff.php
7. "Bush Assures Evangelicals of Commitment to Marriage Amendment"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/12/politics/12EVAN.html?pagewanted=print&position
8a. Online Journal: "Wag the Osama"
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/031004Burns/031004burns.html
8b.NewsNet5: "Ridge Sidesteps Question On Bin Laden's Capture"
http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2917298/detail.html
9. U.S. Unloading WMD in Iraq
http://www.tehrantimes.com/Description.asp?Da=3/13/2004&Cat=4&Num=011
10. Aljazeera.net: "Purported Al Qaida Statement"
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/2CDD53D6-7AF7-40C7-AF88-32A16072F81B.htm
11. NewsMax: "Tommy Franks: 'Martial Law Will Replace Constitution After Next Terror Attack'"
http://infowars.com/print/ps/franks_martial.htm
12. The New McCarthyism, the Progressive:
http://www.progressive.org/0901/roth0102.html
NY Times: "Florida as the next Florida"
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/14/opinion/14SUN1.html
13. Scoop: "Inside a US Election Vote Counting Program"
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00065.htm
14a. NY Times: "Hack the Vote"
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120303A.shtml
b. CBS: "Electronic Voting Causing Concern"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/03/eveningnews/main591185.shtml
c. UK Independent: "All the President's Votes?"
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-01.htm
d. Salon: "Will the Election be Hacked?"
http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/02/09/voting_machines/index_np.html
e. BBC: "Concerns over US Computer Voting"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3489877.stm
f. ABC News: "Avoiding Another Florida Fiasco"
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/GMA/SciTech/Voting_machines_040305-1.html
g. "Comparison of Senate Bills 1980, 1986, and 2045"
http://www.verifiedvoting.org/senate_bill_comparison.asp
You are encouraged to distribute this document freely and widely.
Contact: Eric A. Smith, Hot Damn! Design, Tokyo, Japan ?? 81-03-3959-5371
_______________________________________________
TrueVoteList mailing list
TrueVoteList@mail.truevotemd.org
https://lists.truevotemd.org/mailman/listinfo/truevotelist
March 25, 2004
Spread 9/11 and Iraq Revelations
NOW IS THE TIME, FOLKS! THINGS ARE HEATIN' UP AND WE ALL MUST DO OUR PART!
Urgent: Spread 9/11 and Iraq Revelations
Several days ago, former White House counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke revealed how the Bush administration systematically mishandled 9/11 and Iraq. Help us get Clarke's comments in front of the American people in a new hard-hitting ad. [And forward this item as widely as you can. -v]
Dear Friend of MoveOn.org,
As you may have heard, Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism advisor to Bush, and a registered Republican who has worked in every administration since Reagan, has exposed Bush's mishandling of 9/11 and the war on Iraq.{1} In his book "Against All Enemies," Clarke does an amazing job of presenting the facts and connecting the dots. Instead of refuting Clarke's claims, the Bush Administration has launched a campaign of character assassination, hoping that the story will just go away.{2}
We're committed to stopping that from happening by making sure that the American public hears Clarke's extraordinary comments. If we can raise $300,000 in the next few days, we can run a hard-hitting ad nationally that highlights his message. You can see a rough story board of the ad and donate to get it on the air.
When the World Trade Center was hit on the morning of 9/11, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice dubbed Richard Clarke, the administration's top counter-terrorism official, "crisis manager."{3} As the White House, which was thought to be the next target, was evacuated, Clarke heroically stayed on, coordinating the government's response from the Situation Room in the West Wing.{4}
Clarke is viewed by colleagues as a hawk, a "true believer" who doesn't play partisan politics.{5} So the shocking facts he revealed about the Bush administration's approach to terrorism before 9/11 and its response after must be taken seriously. On Sunday, Clarke told reporters that the President and Defense Secretary downgraded counter-terrorism and ignored repeated warnings about an al Qaeda attack prior to 9/11. And, perhaps even more explosive, Clarke revealed that President Bush and senior administration officials wanted to bomb Iraq after 9/11 even though they knew that it had no connection to al Qaeda, and that al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks.{6}
Already, the White House spin machine is in overdrive. Since they can't rebut Clarke's facts -- which independent witnesses have confirmed{7} -- they're trying to paint him as an angry partisan, even though he's a Republican. But Clarke's words remain a searing indictment of the Bush Administration's campaign against terrorism. Together, if we act today, we can beat back the spin by widely airing a TV ad which gets these uniquely credible comments directly to TV viewers.
You can view a story board of the ad and help us get it on the air now.
In his own words, here are some of Clarke's revelations:
Clarke repeatedly warned the Bush Administration about attacks from al Qaeda, starting in the first days of Bush's term. "But on January 24th, 2001, I wrote a memo to Condoleezza Rice asking for, urgently -- underlined urgently -- a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with the impending al Qaeda attack. And that urgent memo-- wasn't acted on."{8} According to another Bush administration security official, Clarke "was the guy pushing hardest, saying again and again that something big was going to happen, including possibly here in the U.S." The official added that Clarke was likely sidelined because he had served in the previous (Clinton) administration.{9}
In face-to-face meetings, CIA Director George Tenet warned President Bush repeatedly in the months before 9/11 that an attack was coming. According to Clarke, Tenet told the President that "A major al-Qaeda attack is going to happen against the United States somewhere in the world in the weeks and months ahead."{10 }
On September 12, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld pushed to bomb Iraq even though they knew that al Qaeda was in Afghanistan. "Rumsfeld was saying that we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "And we all said ... no, no. Al-Qaeda is in Afghanistan. We need to bomb Afghanistan. And Rumsfeld said there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan. And there are lots of good targets in Iraq. I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with it.'"{11}
Also on September 12, 2001, President Bush personally pushed Clarke to find evidence that Iraq was behind the attacks. From the New York Times: "'I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything,' Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Bush told him. 'See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way.' When Mr. Clarke protested that the culprit was Al Qaeda, not Iraq, Mr. Bush testily ordered him, he writes, to 'look into Iraq, Saddam,' and then left the room."{12}
The Bush Administration knew from the beginning that there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11, but created the misperception in order to push their policy goals. "[Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush] did know better. They did know better. They did know better. We told them, the CIA told them, the FBI told them. They did know better. And the tragedy here is that Americans went to their death in Iraq thinking that they were avenging September 11th, when Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. I think for a commander-in-chief and a vice president to allow that to happen is unconscionable."{13 }
The war on Iraq has increased the danger of terrorism. In his book, he writes that shifting from al Qaeda to Iraq "launched an unnecessary and costly war in Iraq that strengthened the fundamentalist, radical Islamic terrorist movement worldwide."{14}
It's been well reported that President Bush intends to run on his record as a wartime President. Clarke's revelations show how deeply flawed that record is. But if we don't act fast, the public may not have a chance to evaluate the facts for themselves -- the story could go away quickly. With an ad, we can take Clarke's comments directly to the public.
Can you help? Check out the script and donate whatever you can to get this story out there.
(By the way, if we're unable to use your contribution for the ad you specify, either because of oversubscription or for another unforeseen reason, it is our policy to use your contribution for other advertising, public relations, and advocacy activities.)
Richard Clarke had an intimate view -- perhaps the best view -- of how the Bush Administration responded to terrorism. So we should all listen carefully when he says:
"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something to stop 9/11. Maybe. We'll never know. . . I think the way he has responded to al-Qaeda, both before 9/11 by doing nothing, and by what he's done after 9/11 has made us less safe, absolutely. I think he's done a terrible job on the war against terrorism."{15}
Together, we can make sure every American knows what President Bush's true record on terrorism really is.
Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Laura, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn PAC Team
March 24th, 2004
P.S. Read Salon's recently published interview with Clarke.
P.P.S. As the Administration strikes back, our friends at the Center for American Progress have put together an excellent rebuttal to their claims. Here's an example:
CLAIM #1: "Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction and he chose not to." -- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04
FACT: Clarke sent a memo to Rice principals on 1/24/01 marked "urgent" asking for a Cabinet-level meeting to deal with an impending Al Qaeda attack. The White House acknowledges this, but says "principals did not need to have a formal meeting to discuss the threat." No meeting occurred until one week before 9/11. -- White House Press Release, 3/21/04
Footnotes:
1. "Dissent from within on Iraq war," Philadelphia Inquirer, 3/24/04 (Registration required)
2. "Bush Aides Blast Ex-Terror Chief," CBS News, 3/22/04
3. "The book on Richard Clarke," Washington Post, 3/23/04 (Registration required)
4. "Clarke's Take On Terror," CBS, 3/21/04
5. See 3, above.
6. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.
7. "Ex-Bush Aide Sets Off Debate as 9/11 Hearing Opens," New York Times, 3/23/04 (Registration required)
8. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.
9. See 7, above.
10. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.
11. "Sept. 11: Before And After," CBS News, 3/20/04
12. "Excerpts from 'Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror' by Richard A. Clarke," posted on
NYTimes.com, 3/23/04 (Registration required)
13. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.
14. "Memoir Criticizes Bush 9/11 Response," Washington Post, 3/22/04 (Registration required)
15. "60 Minutes" interview; see 4, above.
PAID FOR BY MoveOn PAC
This message is not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee
P.O. Box 9218, Berkeley, CA 94709
Is Bush Unhinged?
by Robert Higgs
Before you conclude that I myself must be unhinged even to raise such a question, ask yourself this: If a man talks as if he has lost contact with reality, then might he actually have done so? Granted that this possibility deserves evaluation, then consider President George W. Bush's rhetoric in his March 19 speech to diplomats and others at the White House.
The president begins by stating his interpretation of the recent bombings in Madrid, reiterating one of his recurrent themes of the past two and a half years: "[T]he civilized world is at war" in a "new kind of war." The concept of war, of course, ranks high among evocative metaphors. Not by accident have politicians declared wars on poverty, drugs, cancer, illiteracy, and an assortment of other alleged enemies. A society at war, as William James observed in 1906 in his call for the "moral equivalent of war," finds a reason for unaccustomed solidarity and – here's where the politicians come in – for unaccustomed submission to central government authority. James himself, after all, was arguing that "the martial type of character can be bred without war." Political leaders are always seeking to establish such character, with themselves in command of the battalions of "disciplined" subjects. Insofar as the so-called war on terrorism merely represents the latest attempt to bend the war metaphor to an obvious political purpose, we might well dismiss the president's rhetorical flourish as nothing but the same old same old.
Bush, however, will allow no such dismissal. "The war on terror," he insists, "is not a figure of speech." Well, I beg your pardon, Mr. President, but that is precisely what it is. How can one go to war against "terror," which is a state of mind? Even if the president were to take more care with his language and to speak instead of a "war on terrorism," the phrase still could not be anything more than a metaphor, because terrorism is a form of action available to virtually any determined adult anywhere anytime. War on terrorism, too, can be only a figure of speech.
War, if it is anything, is the marshalling of armed forces against somebody, not against a state of mind or a form of action. Wars are fought between groups of persons. We might argue about whether the United States can wage war only against another nation state, as opposed to an indefinitely large number of individuals committed to fanatical Islamism who in various workaday guises are living in scores of different countries. The expression "war on certain criminals and conspirators of criminal acts" would fit the present case better and would entail far more sensible thinking about the proper way to deal with such persons. The idea of war, obviously, calls to mind too readily the serviceability of the armed forces. Hence the application of such forces to the conquest of Iraq in the name of "bringing the terrorists to justice," although that conquest was actually nothing but a hugely destructive, immensely expensive diversion from genuine efforts to allay the threat posed by the Islamist maniacs who compose al Qaeda and similar groups. "These killers will be tracked down and found, they will face their day of justice," the president declares, speaking as always as if only a fixed number of such killers exist, rather than a vast reservoir of actual and potential recruits that is only augmented and revitalized by actions such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq. It would be a boon to humanity if the president could be brought to understand the distinction between waging war and establishing justice.
Continued: http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs24.html
March 24, 2004
Richard Clarke speaks out
"Your government failed you. Those entrusted with protecting you failed you. I failed you. We tried hard, but we failed you...I ask for your understanding, and your forgiveness."
- Richard Clarke at his testimony before the 9-11 commission.
You can find a wealth of information about Richard Clarke and his book AGAINST ALL ENEMIES. As a prominent security expert under four different presidential administrations, Richard Clarke isn't exactly your typical partisan operator.
Do a GOOGLE NEWS SEARCH, and you'll be able to read a lot more.
"
March 20, 2004
Al Qaeda Endorses Bush
Some info recycled from the Blame Bush blog:
After calling a truce with Spain, Al Qaeda terrorists have thrown their support behind George Bush for president.
In a statement sent to Arabic language daily al-Hayat, the Al Qaeda-linked Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades claimed it preferred bumbling stupidity over cunning genius, and that it is impossible to find a leader "more foolish than the AWOL Bush, who deals with matters by force rather than with wisdom."
"Americans must NOT vote for Kerry," the message continued. "Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and Muslim nation as civilization. The last thing we terrorists want is a Vietnam war hero like Kerry, who will bring peace and prosperity to the whole world, and turn the American people into complacent sheep with affordable health care and good jobs. We prefer terror and violence - and because of this we desire Dumbya to be elected - or should we say: we prefer him to STEAL the election again."
The letter, crudely written on recycled paper in green crayon, also addressed the 200 million jobs and 750,000 American lives that have been lost on Bush's watch, before concluding with a stunning postscript:
"Let us clarify: The American people must not think we say we prefer Bush so they vote for Kerry just to spite us. We really do like the Shrub, who despite squandering a budget surplus and racking up record deficits, looks good in a flight suit and gives us more excuses to attack and kill you. John Kerry, however, is just too smart for us terrorists, and all the allies Bush alienated will rally behind the esteemed senator from Massachussetts. Do NOT vote for Kerry! And do NOT send money to moveon.org, either.
Allah Ackbar, sayonara, and all that good stuff - the Terrorists."
There you have it, straight from the camel's mouth. Despite all the neocon spinning about how the terrorists manipulated the Spanish elections to put into power a man who supports John Kerry, the truth is that Al Qaeda would much rather have an idiot like Dumbya in the White House than a man of Kerry's brilliance.
READ THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES AT:
http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/2004/03/al_qaeda_endors.html
href=" http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=586&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc&printer=1
March 19, 2004
Iraqi Slaughter Continues
From Wilson's Blogmanac:
*Ø* Blogmanac March | 700 named in Iraq's death toll after a year of slaughter
As the anniversary of the Iraq invasion approaches, Iraq Body Count has been able to establish the names of almost 700 civilians killed in Iraq between March 19th 2003 and February 29th 2004 as a direct consequence of the US/UK invasion and subsequent occupation.
The list, periodically updated and permanently available on the Iraq Body Count website, details
(where known) name, age, gender, place of death, cause of death, and the media sources from which they were obtained.
Although this list provides details for less than 7% of the 10,000 civilians reported killed during the same period (see http://www.iraqbodycount.net/bodycount.htm), it is the closest so far to a truly comprehensive accounting and memorial for the civilian dead in Iraq. Among the 692 deaths listed there are 106 females, 421 males and 94 known to be under 18 years of age.
As world opinion increasingly turns against the US-led coalition for the lies that forced war on a powerless country, and for the chaos into which Iraq has now sunk, the human details pieced together in the Iraq Body Count list paint in graphic and poignant form the terrible, true cost of this war: the pointless loss of husbands, wives, sons and daughters of a proud but suffering people.
Source: Iraq Body Count media release
A Quote from Scalia
"If it is reasonable to think that a Supreme Court justice can be bought so cheap, the nation is in deeper trouble than I had imagined."
- JUSTICE ANTONIN SCALIA, who declined to recuse himself from a case involving his friend and hunting companion, Vice President Dick Cheney.
From New York Times article, dated March 19th
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/19/politics/19SCAL.html?th
March 15, 2004
Bush Administration Manufactures TV News
U.S. Videos, for TV News, Come Under Scrutiny
By ROBERT PEAR
New York Times
Published: March 15, 2004
WASHINGTON, March 14 — Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, which would be offered to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.
The videos are intended for use in local television news programs. Several include pictures of President Bush receiving a standing ovation from a crowd cheering as he signed the Medicare law on Dec. 8.
The materials were produced by the Department of Health and Human Services, which called them video news releases, but the source is not identified. Two videos end with the voice of a woman who says, "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
But the production company, Home Front Communications, said it had hired her to read a script prepared by the government.
Another video, intended for Hispanic audiences, shows a Bush administration official being interviewed in Spanish by a man who identifies himself as a reporter named Alberto Garcia.
Another segment shows a pharmacist talking to an elderly customer. The pharmacist says the new law "helps you better afford your medications," and the customer says, "It sounds like a good idea." Indeed, the pharmacist says, "A very good idea."
The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."
READ THE REST OF THE STORY AT:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/15/politics/15VIDE.html?th/
March 14, 2004
April 1st 2004
National "I'm Embarrassed by My President" Day = April 1st, 2004
Are you embarrassed by the arrogance, greed, shortsightedness, selfishness, and outright lies told by George W. Bush?
Join tens of thousands of others across the country and world and wear a brown armband or ribbon to symbolize all the BS coming out of the White House.
It's not just that I disagree with the current dministration. I'm outraged. And I'm downright embarrassed to talk to anyone from another country. I'm embarassed to have an President so arrogant, so dishonest, so hawkish, that in three years, he has nearly destroyed any good relations we had before he took office, and worsened those that were already bad.
I find myself apologizing to my foreign friends both in this country and abroad while trying vainly to explain the sheer idiocy and illogic of the current administration's policies.
So this April 1st, April Fools day, join tens of thousands of others who are wearing brown armbands or ribbons to signify the bullshit flowing down from Washington.
Making the armbands is easy - just use tape and cut a brown paper bag, brown cloth, a brown sheet, ribbon, or anything else into strips 3 inches wide and 12-24 inches long. Or get brown ribbon. If you make a band for yourself, then make lots of spares to pass on to friends and strangers
MORE INFORMATION AT:
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/brown/
March 12, 2004
LEAGUE OF LIBERALS BLOGGERS' ROUNDUP
Caution: Some posts contain adult references to
certain members of the administration.
"TRICKS? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRICKS!"
No doubt this was one of the proposed anti-Bush ads that Move-On decided not to accept for their contest, perhaps because it doesn't say anything about Hitler or Nazis. I'll only point out the philosophical flaw when this says Our Noble Leader has "the total combined intelligence of a wet sock and a mud brick". That is mixing apples and oranges, since it is no more possible to combine the minds of such different substances than it is to have a "marriage" between two people of the same gender. Don't try this at work, but if you want to see how juvenile liberals' sense of humor is, turn on your computer's sound and visit THIS SITE. There's another example of how silly leftists are, with absurd charges of racism in a Texas Republican primary, (no, really!!) in my March 2 posting. --Ayn Clouter.
---0---0---0---
Bringing Up the Dead
It's sad to see how good Catholic girls like Jeanne D'Orleans, corrupted by liberalism, are promoting denunciations of Our Noble Leader like this one by Jimmy Breslin at "He molests the dead". There's more theology at my March 7 post, "Nobody Expects The Spanish Inquisition". --Ayn Clouter
---0---0---0---
Your Majesty John Kerry?
According to Reuter's Kerry's blood might be bluer than Bush's... and that may mean winning the White House in November.
---0---0---0---
Mainstream Media Equates Liberal with Traitor
Unfortunately Ann Coulter's not the only one making this ridiculous connection.
---0---0---0---
BushWorld Too Unstable for Market Strength
EXCERPT from Anonymoses:
To fix the economy, we need to send a signal to the world, and to average Americans, that help is on the way. Real help this time. Not help in the form of a moribund economy. Not in the form of Shock and Awe and other environmental hazards. Not in the form of a secret Business Government whose goal is "Big Cookie", but whose means is raiding the cookie jar.
Democrats have proven that they can better be trusted with the common well, and the common wealth.
America can be a generator of healing. Healing ourselves and the world on many levels, none of which entail surgical strikes or Shock and Awe.
Help is on the way. If Bush were a good man, he would step out of the way.
Please. You cried when you left Crawford.
Be happy. Go home.
---0---0---0---
Mad Kane Hires An Ombudsman
For years I've been flooded with emails challenging the accuracy of MadKane.com. At first I did what most publications do -- I ignored them. But as time went by, I realized that something had to be done. So in keeping with recent trends and in the interest of sound journalism, I've appointed an ombudsman who'd like to be known only as "Bud." Here's part of Bud's first report:
- The poem entitled Dubya's Poetic Injustice states that during George W. Bush's Election 2000 campaign, Bush promised to be a "compassionate conservative" and to have a "humble foreign policy." After this poem was published, we learned that Bush was "crossing his fingers" whenever he made those promises, so "they didn't really count." We regret this error.
- According to a State of Disunion crossword puzzle clue, President Bush believes that raising twins is even harder than waging war. While Bush did in fact make that statement, he has since changed his mind and now acknowledges that waging war is "an itsy-bitsy bit harder than raising twins." We are sorry for failing to keep up to date on this issue.
- In Dubya's Don't Blame Me Song the lyricist itemizes several things as not being George W. Bush's fault, including the jobless rate, 9/11, the mission accomplished banner, and the lack of WMD's. We have since learned that many more things weren't the President's fault and we regret our lack of comprehensiveness.
The rest of
Ombudsman Bud's first report is here.
March 07, 2004
Bush's Flip Flops
More great information recycled from Kos of Daily Kos
So Bush has a site somewhere that tracks Kerry's "flip-flops". Reader TK probably spent three seconds coming up with this list of Bush flip flops. It's not like they're hard to find:
Bush is against campaign finance reform; then he's for it.
Bush is against a Homeland Security Department; then he's for it.
Bush is against a 9/11 commission; then he's for it.
Bush is against an Iraq WMD investigation; then he's for it.
Bush is against nation building; then he's for it.
Bush is against deficits; then he's for them.
Bush is for free trade; then he's for tariffs on steel; then he's against them again.
Bush is against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli Palestinian conflict; then he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.
Bush is for states right to decide on gay marriage, then he is for changing the constitution.
Bush first says he'll provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency), then he doesn't.
Bush first says that 'help is on the way' to the military ... then he cuts benefits
Bush-"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. Bush-"I don't know where he is. I have no idea and I really don't care.
Bush claims to be in favor of the environment and then secretly starts drilling on Padre Island.
Bush talks about helping education and increases mandates while cutting funding.
Bush first says the U.S. won't negotiate with North Korea. Now he will
Bush goes to Bob Jones University. Then say's he shouldn't have.
Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq. Later Bush announced he would not call for a vote
Bush said the "mission accomplished" banner was put up by the sailors. Bush later admits it was his advance team.
Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the US. Bush after meeting with Pres. Fox, he's against it.
GO TO THE SOURCE OF THIS STORY, ADD TO THE COMMENTS
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/3/7/213753/1954/
March 06, 2004
BUSH'S WATERGATE?
[The Bush administration has been trying to hide the truth of many matters behind closed doors, delay tactics, holey stories and, of course, bald-faced lies. Americans have grown up over the past three years. We know the Santa Claus story and all about the Tooth Fairy. We want the facts about 9/11. Yes! We CAN handle the truth! We MUST have the truth! We know there's something happening and we must know what it is -- before it's too late. November 4th is too late! Thank you, Stephen, for bringing this, the first, but hopefully not the last, of the mainstream research of this all-important subject to the fore. -v from A-Changin' Times (ACT) http://achangintimes.com]
From Stephen Dinan of RadicalSpirit.org:
Greetings all,
I have been paying attention for some time to the movement of people who are convinced that the official 9-11 story is not the real one. An impressive amount of evidence has accumulated, with books, conferences, videos, and websites pointing to established facts that are very hard to reconcile with the official story. However, I have been waiting on publicizing any of this work widely until it felt right. That time is now.
The reason is the publication of a new book: The New Pearl Harbor: Was the Bush Administration Complicit in 9/11?. It has been written by David Ray Griffin, one of the most established and respected philosophers of our day, with something like 20 books to his credit. He is a grounded, sober, and very established academic who has little to gain from a book like this and a lot to lose. I have met him and respect his work. He’s not a fringe guy fed up with the system who simply wants to undermine it. He’s a man who has devoted his life to studying and explicating the truth, mainly in the realm of philosophy and theology and he’s never done a book anything like this. Here’s his website at Claremont: http://www.cst.edu/grif.htm. While I have not read the book yet, I have ordered three copies and people whose opinions I trust and who saw advance copies say that it is a breakthrough. It does not conclude exactly what level of deception has occurred but merely illuminates just how many holes, problems, and likely illusions there are in the official story, pointing towards the necessity of a much deeper investigation.
As you may know, the 9/11 Commission will hold two days of public testimony from top people in the Bush administration at the end of this month, according to the Associated Press. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and CIA Director George Tenet will testify publicly in a federal commission inquiry into the Sept. 11 attacks. This will be the last official opportunity to grill them. It is thus imperative to activate a much deeper level of inquiry and activism around this information quickly.
I think this book and the 9-11 material in general will play a key role in electoral politics this year, seriously undermining Bush’s credibility, especially since he’s working to capitalize on 9-11 to win votes. The implications of this investigation are more than worrisome. What I strongly encourage people to do is read the reviews I have pasted below, order the book directly from the publisher so you can get it quickly (Amazon won’t have it in stock for a week or two), and start campaigns to the press and members of congress to bring up the questions that must be asked.
Personally, I think this is Bush’s Watergate, the scandal that can undermine his power in a way that even a $150M war chest cannot fix. It is thus vital that this investigative work is advanced and contemplated by anyone interested in removing him from power next year. I ask that you simply keep an open mind and investigate the evidence that Griffin has assembled here, making up your own mind.
Best,
Stephen Dinan
To order:
http://www.interlinkbooks.com/New_Pearl_Harbor.html
Book Review
The New Pearl Harbor:
Was the Bush Administration Complicit in 9/11?
by Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether
Until recently I dismissed the suggestions that the Bush administration might have been complicit in allowing 9/11 to happen as groundless "conspiracy theory." I regarded the federal investigative bureaucracies as suffering from a "lock the barn door after the horse has escaped" syndrome. American government agencies seemed to me to be full of repressive energy and exaggerated overreach after some atrocity had occurred, but remarkably incompetent when it came to preventing something in advance. There is no question that the Bush administration has profited greatly from the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but I did not imagine that they could have actually known they were being planned and deliberately allowed them to happen..
Thus it was with some skepticism that I agreed to read the new book written by David Ray Griffin, a process theologian from the Claremont School of Theology (Claremont, California), that argues the case for just such complicity. This book, The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11, is due for release in January, 2004. Griffin admits that he too was skeptical toward such suggestions until he began to actually read the evidence that has been accumulated by a number of researchers, both in the United States and Europe. As he became increasingly convinced that there was a case for complicity, he planned to write an article, but this quickly grew into a book.
The first startling piece of evidence that Griffin puts forward is establishing the motive among leaders in the Bush administration for allowing such an attack. Already in 2000 the right-wing authors of the "Project for the New American Century: Rebuilding America's Defenses," opined that the military expansion they desired would be difficult unless a "new Pearl Harbor" occurred. They had outlined plans for a major imperial expansion of American power that included a greatly increased military budget and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, primarily to secure oil supplies, but also to control the region generally. But they believed that the American people would not have the will for such actions without some devastating attack from outside that would galvanize them through fear and anger to support it. In short, they had already envisioned facilitating a major attack on the United States in order to gain the public support for their policy goals.
Griffin then shows the considerable evidence that the Bush administration knew in advance that such an attack was being planned, despite claims by the administration that such an attack was completely unanticipated. As early as 1995 the Philippine police conveyed to the U.S. information found on an Al-Queda computer that detailed "Project Bojinka" that envisioned hyjacking planes and flying them into targets, such as the World Trade Center, the White House and the Pentagon. By July of 2001 the CIA and the FBI had intercepted considerable information that such an attack was planned for the Fall. Leaders of several different countries, including the Taliban in Afghanistan, as well as leaders of Russia, Britain, Jordan, Egypt and Israel, conveyed information to the United States that such an attack was being planned. It appears not only that all these warnings were disregarded, but that investigations into them were obstructed.
The actual events of September 11 leave many puzzling questions. Standard procedures for intervention when a plane goes off course were not followed in the case of all four airplanes. Within ten minutes of evidence that a plane has been hyjacked standard procedures call for fighter jets to intervene and demand that the plane follow it to an airport. If the plane fails to obey, it should be shot down. There was time for this to happen before the plane was over New York City in the case of the first jet and more than ample time in the case of the second. Moreover when the order was finally given to intervene, it was not to McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, seventy miles from New York City, but from Otis Air National Guard in Cape Cod.
Griffin also examines unexplained issues about the other two planes. Eye witnesses and on-site evidence suggests that a missile or guided fighter aircraft, not a large commercial plane, crashed into the Pentagon. Moreover the part of the Pentagon that was hit was not where high ranking generals were working, but an area under repair with few military officials. Flight #93 was the only plane shot down, although only after it appeared passengers were on the verge of taking control. Griffin also examines the conduct of President Bush on that day, giving considerable evidence that he knew of the first crash immediately after it happened, but delayed his response for some half a hour, nonchalantly continuing with a photo op with elementary school children.
These are only a few details of the myriad data that Griffin assembles to show that, not only did the Bush administration have detailed information that such attacks were going to occur on September 11 and failed to carry through protective responses in advance, but that they also obstructed the standard procedures to intervene in these events on the actual day it happened.
Griffin concludes the book with some considerable evidence of the way the Bush Administration has obstructed any independent investigation of 9/11 since it occurred, both withholding key documents and insisting that the official investigation, when it was set up, limit itself to recommendations about how to avoid such an event in the future, and not focus on how it actually was able to happen. Griffin writes in a precise and careful fashion, avoiding inflammatory rhetoric. He argues for a high probability for the Bush Administration's complicity in allowing and facilitating the attacks, based not on any one conclusive piece of evidence, but the sheer accumulation of all of the data. He concludes by calling for a genuinely independent investigative effort that would examine all this evidence. He himself plans to send the book to the Kean Commission presently charged with that task, even though he has doubts about its real independence.
I personally found Griffin's book both convincing and chilling. If the complicity of the Bush Administration to which he points is true, then Americans have a far greater problem on their hands than even the more ardent anti-war critics have imagined. If the administration would do this, what else would they do to maintain and expand their power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dr. Rosemary Radford Ruether has been a pioneer Christian feminist theologian for over three decades and is among the most widely read theologians in the world. Her book, Sexism and God-Talk, a classic in the field of theology, remains the only systematic feminist treatment of the Christian symbols to date. With wide-ranging scholarship, Dr. Ruether has written and edited over thirty books and hundreds of articles and reviews.)
Foreword by Richard Falk
"It will be painful, and disturbing, to turn the pages of this
thoughtful and meticulously researched book. But turn we must. For we
owe the truth to those who died, and nothing less." -- Colleen Kelly,
sister of Bill Kelly, Jr., who was killed in the North Tower of the
World Trade Center on 9/11, and Co-Founder of September 11th Families
for Peaceful Tomorrows.
From a skeptical vantage-point, but also taking to heart the classic
idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to at least be
investigated, Griffin, an eminent philosopher and theologian, brings
together an account of the national tragedy that is far more logical
than the one we've been asked to believe. Gathering stories from the
mainstream press, reports from other countries, the work of other
researchers, and the contradictory words of members of the Bush
administration themselves, Griffin presents a case that leaves very
little doubt that the attacks of 9/11 need to be further investigated.
The disturbing questions emerge from every part of the story, from
every angle, until it is impossible not to seriously doubt the
official story, and suspect its architects of enormous deception.
Long a teacher of ethics and systematic theology, Griffin writes
with compelling and passionate logic, urging readers to draw their
own conclusions from the evidence outlined. The New Pearl Harbor
rings with the conviction that it is possible, even today, to search
for the truth; it is a stirring call that we demand a real
investigation into what happened on 9/11.
David Ray Griffin has been a professor of philosophy of religion and
theology at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over
30 years. He is co-director of the Center for Process Studies there
and the author or editor of over 20 books.
Media Reviews
"That 9/11 has become a defining moment in our history cannot be
gainsaid. But its exact significance is an exceedingly contentious
question notwithstanding the seeming clarity of prevailing accounts.
David Ray Griffin deconstructs those accounts with a host of
unresolved puzzles strongly suggestive of some sort of culpable
complicity by US officials in the event. His book presents an
incontrovertible argument of the need for a genuinely full and
independent investigation of that infamous day."--Douglas Sturm,
Presidential Professor of Religion and Political Science, Emeritus,
Bucknell University
"David Ray Griffin has done admirable and painstaking research in
reviewing the mysteries surrounding the 9-11 attacks. It is the most
persuasive argument I have seen for further investigation of the Bush
administration's relationship to that historic and troubling event."
-- Howard Zinn
"Was the U.S.'s failure to defend itself against the attacks on Sept.
11 a comedy of errors or a brilliant, if cynical, plot by highly
placed government officials, or something else? We'll never know as
long as the administration stonewalls efforts to get information. But
such relatively reliable information as is now available is assembled
in this book, so that citizens can come to more informed judgments
about the nature and functioning of our government. This is a must
read for all who want to get past the conspiracy of silence and
mystification that surrounds these events."-- John B. Cobb, Jr.,
Professor of Theology, Emeritus, Claremont School of Theology and
Claremont Graduate University
"This book is as full of research and authoritative notes as a field
full of springtime daisies. The author raises frightening questions,
and the questions beg for answers. One thing we can conclude for
certain. The events surrounding 9-11, both before and after, cannot
be simply swept under the rug of conventional wisdom unless we allow
it. This book gives us a foundation to discover the truth, one that
we may not wish to hear." -- Gerry Spence
"David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor belongs on the book shelves of
all those who, in any way, doubt the veracity of the accounts
presented to the public by the Bush administration concerning the
worst terrorist attack in America's history. The facts presented in
this book are disturbing -- and they should be. Griffin's book goes a
long way in answering the age-old question inherent in American
political scandals: What did the President know, and when did he know
it?"-- Wayne Madsen, author, journalist, syndicated columnist
March 04, 2004
Howard Stern and Bush Backlash
Thanks to Bushflash.com we’re able to find these fine words from Maureen Farrell:
Thirty-six years ago, Walter Cronkite returned from a visit to Vietnam and set the nation straight. "We've been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds, " he said. "For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate."
"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost the country," President Johnson remarked.
Anyone who hasn't been living under a rock for the past two years can see how fitting these remarks are today -- not only as they relate to this White House's determination to whitewash its blunders, but to the media's power to shape public opinion. And while Howard Stern is no Walter Cronkite, former EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman recently explained the extent of Stern's clout. "Eleven years ago, Howard Stern endorsed me for Governor," she told Bill Maher. "I want to tell you, in the closest races that I had, that made a difference."
Listed by FOX last March as one of the "pro-Bush celebs [missing] out on the limelight," Stern has since rethought his position. On Feb. 26 (the day Stern's program was suspended in half a dozen Clear Channel markets), he not only said that the Bush administration doesn't know what it is doing in Iraq, but within a ten minute span pointed out that:
Al Gore won the election.
Bush did not fulfill his duty in the National Guard.
George W. will never admit that Poppy Bush pulled stings to get him into the Guard and keep him out of Vietnam.
There are several questions about Bush's character.
While callers to the show repeatedly expressed dismay that Stern was taken off the air in certain cities, one fan expressed the overall mood by saying that the new FCC/Clear Channel tactics are reminiscent of Nazi book burnings. Never mind that the canaries in the proverbial coal mine were chirping a similar tune last year, back when radio stations were organizing Dixie Chick CD demolitions, the distant rumbling of goose-stepping is now being heard by former Bush supporters, too. Dubbing Clear Channel "fear channel," Stern warned that the "fascist right-wing" is "getting so much power."
The following day, Stern was even more forceful. "Get rid of George W. Bush," he said, adding that Bush is "dangerous" and has a "religious agenda." By Monday, March 1, Stern was circumspect. "There's a real good argument to be made that I stopped backing Bush and that's when I got kicked off Clear Channel," he said.
Read the rest of the article at
http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/03/far04006.html
Bush gave terrorist a pass
(courtesy of Daily Kos )
This one is really serious.
Let me set the stage. Abu Musab Zarqawi, a Jordanian militant with ties to al-Qaida, is being blamed for most of the major terrorist attacks in Iraq the past few months, including the horrific suicide bombings that killed hundreds of religious pilgrims on Tuesday.
This guy is a real slime, obviously, especially since his connections to al-Qaida appear real, not trumped up for political reasons.
So get this -- the Pentagon could've wiped him and his merry band of terrorists off the face of the planet two years ago. But Bush and his merry band of liars nixed the attack.
From the MSNBC Report:
In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.
The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.
"Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn't do it," said Michael O'Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.
Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.
The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.
"People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president's policy of preemption against terrorists," according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.
In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.
The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.
Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.
Got that? The administration invented ties between Saddam and Bin Laden to justify its war against an impotent Iraq. Yet it had real, live terrorists in its crosshairs, and refused to pull the trigger.
Because it would hurt the case against Bush's War.
And as a result, at least 700 have paid the ultimate price.
Sources:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/
http://www.dailykos.com/ )
March 03, 2004
Bankrupting America
Greenspan Testimony Highlights Bush Plan for Deliberate Federal Bankruptcy
By Michael Meurer
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Tuesday 02 March 2004
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan's Feb. 25 testimony to the House Budget Committee provided an unintentionally candid look at the Bush administration's deliberate fiscal policy of bankrupting the federal government to justify a sweeping program of privatization.
During his February 25 testimony before the House Budget Committee, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan generated sensational national headlines by recommending that President Bush's $1.5 trillion in tax cuts be made permanent while Social Security and Medicare benefits be dramatically cut to achieve long term deficit reduction and a balanced budget.
In spite of the media furor and across the board condemnation by the remaining Democratic presidential candidates, there should be no reason for surprise at Greenspan's remarks. In his capacity as shill for the Bush administration, the Chairman's recommendations make perfect sense, as long as one is not foolish enough to believe the window dressing about a long term balanced budget. Mr. Greenspan is laying the groundwork for a second Bush administration, not a balanced budget. His remarks, and most of the economic policies of the Bush administration, can only be understood against the backdrop of the little remarked right wing agenda of deliberate federal bankruptcy.
From the first months of the Bush administration, when their initial breathtaking tax cuts were presented to Congress, it has been obvious that the explicit goal of this administration is to bankrupt the federal government to justify a sweeping program of privatization. Pursuing federal bankruptcy is a deliberate policy.
This administration's pursuit of bankruptcy as deliberate policy had to be extraordinarily bold from day one because public programs such as Social Security were so extraordinarily solvent into the distant future, and the underlying strength and diversity of the U.S. economy was sufficient to keep them that way if spending priorities were not radically altered. The events of 9/11 provided the perfect cover for pursuing federal bankruptcy in the guise of an open ended war on terror.
ANOTHER MUST-READ! http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/030304F.shtml
[Now it all makes sense! -v]