the-peoples-patriot, a political Blog: 04/04/2004

Saturday, April 10, 2004

A MESSAGE TO AMERICA'S STUDENTS FROM RALPH NADER

Nader: The War, The Draft, Your Future

We have been down this road before.

U.S. troops sent to war half a world away. American foreign policy controlled by an arrogant elite, bent on projecting military power around the globe. A public misled into supporting an unconstitutional war founded on deceit and fabrications.

As the death toll mounts, we hear claims that the war is nearly won, that victory is just around the corner. But victory never arrives.

As the public loses confidence in the government, the government questions the patriotism of any who express doubt about the war.

When a presidential election arrives, both the Democrat and Republican nominees embrace the policy of continued war.

The military draft comes to dominate the lives of America's young, and vast numbers who believe the war to be a senseless blunder are faced with fighting a war they do not believe in, or facing exile or prison.

The year was 1968. Because voters had no choice that November, the Vietnam War continued for another six years. Hundreds of thousands of Americans like you died, were maimed, or suffered from diseases like malaria. A far greater number of Vietnamese died.

Today, the war is in the quicksands and alleys of Iraq. Once again, under the pressure of a determined resistance, we see an American war policy being slowly torn apart at the seams, while the candidates urge us to "stay the course" in this tragic misadventure. Today's Presidential candidates are not Nixon and Humphrey, they are now Bush and Kerry.

Once again, there is one overriding truth: If war is the only choice in this election, then war we will have.

Today enlistments in the Reserves and National Guard are declining. The Pentagon is quietly recruiting new members to fill local draft boards, as the machinery for drafting a new generation of young Americans is being quietly put into place.

Young Americans need to know that a train is coming, and it could run over their generation in the same way that the Vietnam War devastated the lives of those who came of age in the sixties.

I am running for President, and have been against this war from the beginning. We must not waste lives in order to control and waste more oil. Stand with us and we may yet salvage your future and Americas' future from this looming disaster.

- Ralph Nader

How You Can Get Involved:

We, the young organizers of Nader for President in 2004 campaign, need your help to make Ralph Nader's voice part of the national debate in 2004. Here is what you can do:
1. Forward this email to every list and young person you know, or go to http://www.votenader.org/sfn/message_on_iraq_war.php and send a link to the page out to them.
2. Help get Ralph on the ballot. Go to our ballot access webpage at http://www.votenader.org and connect with students and organizers statewide to obtain the necessary signatures.
3. Join the effort in Texas and North Carolina. We need BIG help in the next 5 weeks to get Ralph on the ballot in Texas and North Carolina (we need to collect 80,000 signatures in each state.) Please contact anyone you know in those two states and urge them to join our petition drives. [http://www.votenader.org/roadtrip/].
4. Start a Students for Nader Chapter and begin organizing students at your school. Get started by logging onto our students for Nader webpage [http://www.votenader.org/sfn/index.php] ……
5. Register to Vote: If you're 18 or will be 18 by Nov. 2, 2004, please register to vote by clicking on this link [http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv_register.php] ….

MY ADVICE endeavors at keen.com. The number is 1-800-275-5336 (800-ask-keen) + ext. 0329063 for tech stuff, 0329117 for running a small business, and 0329144 on investing. Want to CHAT, I use Yahoo's IM as the_web_ster. View me in the Friends & Family part of webcamnow.com, just click on "view cams", then in the Java window click on WebcamNow Communities drop down arrow & select Friends & Family. Under the live webcams look for & click on me "the_webster".

send comments via Email to me, D

Friday, April 09, 2004

Bush Administration Continues to Lobby Against Stronger EU Chemical Rules

The Bush administration, which has been actively lobbying against European plans to strengthen regulations covering the chemical industry, recently enlisted the aid of U.S. diplomats abroad to step up pressure on European governments.

Last week the Financial Times reported that U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell sent a confidential cable in March to U.S. diplomats in the European Union (EU) and 10 countries set to join the EU in May. Powell urged the U.S. officials to lobby the foreign governments against the new chemical rules.[1]

"U.S. agencies believe it is important to reiterate to government officials and stakeholders our general concerns" about the proposed chemical regulations, the Powell cable stated. It also provided diplomats with a list of talking points to use in their communications with "appropriate host government environment, trade, industry and foreign ministry officials."[2]

A follow-up article this week reported on a complaint from Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) "accusing the Administration of working with U.S. industry" to influence European chemical policy. In the article the European Commission "expressed concern" over the combined effort to sway EU regulations.[3]

The European proposal, known as REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorization of Chemicals), would require manufacturers to test thousands of chemicals for health and environmental impacts in order for them remain on the market. The EU Commission proposed the reforms to improve the safety of chemicals to which people are exposed through a variety of household, industrial and personal products.

While the regulations would apply only to chemicals manufactured in Europe, U.S. chemical companies would have to meet the same standards in order to export their products to European countries. The U.S. government and U.S. chemical industry have argued the new restrictions could be too costly and burdensome.

Little is currently known about the safety of most chemicals manufactured in the U.S. or Europe. Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. does not require companies to test chemicals for human exposure risks before placing them on the market.

In fact, U.S. chemical regulatory policy fails to require any testing whatsoever for more than 95 percent of the chemicals currently in commerce. Studies show that as a result, Americans carry a "body burden" of more than 100 chemicals used in products such as Teflon pans, cosmetics and flame retardants used in fabrics and electronic goods.

###

TAKE ACTION
Sign a petition to let the Bush Administration know that you support the EU plan to test chemicals for safety to human health and environmental hazards.

###

SOURCES:
[1] "US Diplomats to Lobby EU on Chemicals Rules," Financial Times, March 28, 2004.
[2] Ibid.
[3] "Fears Over US Tactics on EU Chemical Rules," Financial Times, Apr 6, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

This section contains statements and speeches by Ms. Streisand.

"Wake Up America!" ...Barbra Streisand Her Blog
Posted on April 1, 2004
I understand that for most of you reading this website...I am in many ways preaching to the choir. You know how I feel about this current administration, and many of you feel the same way. But can you believe that some polls now show that more people believe Bush/Rice/Cheney's take on their handling of intelligence pre-and post-9/11 than the many people inside the administration who have come out to tell us the facts about what really went on - including Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neil (see last week's statement about Clarke's take on Bush's handling of 9/11 for more of my thoughts on this).

I am now listening on tape to the book "House of Bush, House of Saud," which I highly recommend. Did you know that in 2001, from January-Labor Day, Bush spent 42% of his time on vacation! Is this what we want out of our president?

So here is what I think - we all need to talk to as many people as possible leading up to the election. Ask anyone and everyone you know who still trusts Bush why they have such faith in him. Get to understand their psyches...let them know the truth...do whatever you can! There is so much at stake...

send comments via Email to me, D

CHENEY COMES ON THE FACTOR TO DEFEND WH REFUSAL TO RELEASE CONDI SPEECH by Al Franken, with Ben Wikler and Ayo Griffin 4/9/2004 at 13:47

Here’s the transcript of The Factor’s exclusive interview with Vice President Dick Cheney from today’s show:

KATHERINE: As many of you may know, Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to deliver a speech at Johns Hopkins University on September 11th 2001. Excerpts of the speech which cited missile defense as the cornerstone of our new national security strategy, appeared last week in the Washington Post. According to Post sources, the speech contained no direct mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden, or Islamic extremists. The Bush Administration has refused to release the full text of the speech. And joining us to explain why the White House has made that decision, is Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Vice President, thank you for joining us.

DICK: Pleasure to be on the Factor, Katherine. And thank you agreeing to my condition that Mr. Franken not be here in the studio while I am on the show.

KATHERINE: Well, we wouldn’t do that for just anybody. Mr. Vice President, why not release the speech?

DICK: Ah, Katherine, we actually are unable to release it due to significant national security concerns. The President, Dr. Rice, and I take national security very seriously.

KATHERINE: But this was a speech that Dr. Rice was going to give in public. How could that possibly compromise national security?

DICK: Katherine, in a pre-9/11 context, that speech would not raise any national security issues. But 9/11 changed everything, and now that speech would be very dangerous if it got in the hands of America’s enemies.

KATHERINE: I don’t understand. My understanding was that the speech was simply laying our national security priorities.

DICK: That’s precisely the problem, Katherine. If our enemies knew how off base were with our priorities, it would make it seem like we didn’t know what we were doing, which would damage our credibility with both our friends and enemies.

KATHERINE: I don’t understand it. How off could we have been.

DICK: Believe me, Katherine. The speech shows that not only were we asleep at the wheel, but actually, well, almost delusional about the nature of the threats facing America.

KATHERINE: So much so that it would compromise our credibility?

DICK: Ah, in context of the events that happened that day, yes. It’s one thing for other countries to fear us or disagree with us, it’s another thing for them to know that we had our heads completely up our ass.

KATHERINE: I see.

DICK: Frankly, it would just give aid and comfort to our enemies if they knew just how far our heads were stuck up there before 9/11.

KATHERINE: Well, then shouldn’t your strategy have been just to hide all the evidence of how you missed the boat on terrorism before 9/11? Isn’t this speech just the tip of the iceberg?

DICK: Actually, that has been our strategy all along. What we usually do when someone exposes how badly we screwed up, usually what we do is we conduct a coordinated smear campaign to impugn their motives and just stonewall against their specific charges. It hasn’t been a total success, but we’re comfortable with how it’s been going.

KATHERINE: All right. Thank you, Mr. Vice President. That was very illuminating.

DICK: My pleasure, Katherine. I hope you know that the guy you’re working with is in the pocket of the trial lawyers.

KATHERINE: That…that doesn’t even make any sense.

DICK: I thought I’d give it a try. Thanks for having me.

KATHERINE: Our pleasure. Vice President Dick Cheney, ladies and gentlemen.

DICK: (off mike) You. Your people agreed you wouldn’t be in here.

AL: I’m sorry, Mr. Vice President. I thought the interview was over.

DICK: OK.

send comments via Email to me, D

Thursday, April 08, 2004

RICE YET TO ANSWER FOR TWO DISHONEST STATEMENTS

As Condoleezza Rice's testimony before the 9/11
Commission approaches, she
continues to push two distinctly dishonest
statements in an effort to blur
President Bush's failure to defend America in 2001.

First and foremost, Rice continues to make the
now-discredited claim that
the White House did not have intelligence warning
them that terrorists were
plotting to use airplanes as missiles in an attack
on America. In 2002 she
said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted
that ... they would try to
use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane
as a missile" (1). She
said this in spite of the intelligence community
having issued 12 separate
warnings of such a plan, including a 1999 warning
saying that "suicide
bomber(s) belonging to al Qaeda's Martyrdom
Battalion could crash-land an
aircraft...into the Pentagon, the headquarters of
the Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA), or the White House" (2). When
presented with these facts, she
told the 9/11 Commission in January 2004 that she
misspoke and that she
"regretted" her earlier denials (3). Yet less than
four months after her
apology, she made the same false claim, writing in
a March 22, 2004 op-ed in
the Washington Post that "we received no
intelligence that terrorists were
preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as
missiles" (4).

Secondly, Rice is now saying through spokesmen that
she was "not briefed"
about terrorists' plans to use airplanes as
missiles before 2002, when she
began making the false claim that she had no such
warnings (5). But even if
Rice did neglect all 12 previous intelligence
reports, she cannot claim she
was never briefed about such a threat, considering
she was the top national
security official accompanying President Bush to
the G-8 Summit in Genoa,
Italy in July 2001. There, she and the president
were explicitly warned that
"Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill world
leaders by crashing an
airliner" into the summit (6).

Sources:
1. National Security Advisor Holds Press Briefing,
05/16/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27236.
2. "Report Warned Of Suicide Hijackings", CBS News,
05/17/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27237.
3. "As Rice Testimony Nears, Tone Remains a
Question", New York Times,
04/07/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27238.
4. "9/11: For The Record", Washington Post,
03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27239.
5. "As Rice Testimony Nears, Tone Remains a
Question", New York Times,
04/07/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27238.
6. "Italy Tells of Threat at Genoa Summit", Los
Angeles Times, 09/27/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=27240.

send comments via Email to me, D

Bush Administration Scores "F" on Children's Health

The Bush Administration has received a grade of "F" on protecting the health and safety of America's children. On Monday the Children's Environmental Health Network (CEHN) released the "Bush Administration Report Card 2001-2004," reviewing 16 policy areas ranging from air quality regulation to lead poisoning prevention, to support for children's environmental health programs, and more.

Describing a consistent pattern of actions and inactions, CEHN concluded that "this Administration's track record is toxic to our children." The CEHN report card explores the federal record of the past three years in detail, noting that "this Administration had ample opportunity to do better" in many areas.

In mercury regulation, for example, the Bush Administration received an "F" for its attempts to weaken regulation and reduction of environmental exposure to this neurotoxin. CEHN notes that in a July, 2000 report, the National Academy of Sciences determined that "each year more than 60,000 children are born at risk for neurodevelopmental problems associated with in-utero mercury exposure. The NAS recommended that every effort should be made to reduce the release of mercury into the environment."

CEHN gave the Bush Administration a "C" for prevention of lead poisoning. Despite the long-recognized neurotoxicity of lead to children, the Bush Administration's proposed FY2005 budget cuts $35 million from lead hazard control grants -- a funding reduction of 20%.

The administration is also seeking to reduce or eliminate funding for Health and Urban Development (HUD) programs that help low-income families find safe and affordable housing, including $50 million in HUD lead hazard control grants.

CEHN assigns an "F" for the Bush Administration's consistent lack of commitment to children's environmental health research and programs. A few examples:

Under President Bush, the Office of Children's Health Protection has been leaderless for over two years.

In October 2001, the administration announced funding for four new research centers into children's environmental health, only to have EPA cut the budgets for the original eight. Congressional pressure restored some of this funding, but the total number of centers will ultimately be 11, not 12.

EPA also cut funding for the National Children's Study, which would follow approximately 100,000 children from before birth to at least age 18, assessing the impact of environmental factors on health.
The Bush Administration also received "F" grades for failing to promote or support other aspects of children's environmental health, such as placing politics above science in setting policy, and consistently impeding the public's access to information.

"Each Administration's actions -- and inactions -- profoundly affect the lives and well-being of children, through childhood and beyond," CEHN states in the executive summary. "Even as this report is being finalized, a number of emerging issues reiterate the overwhelming pattern that children are losing out to other priorities of this Administration."[1]

###

SOURCES:
[1] Children's Environmental Health Bush Administration Report Card, 2001-2004, Children's Environmental Health Network.

send comments via Email to me, D

posted by Adam1010

In my 50 years of life on this planet I’ve never seen a larger pile of evasive rambling done by anyone at any place or any time. Over and over, Condoleeza Rice was given simple straightforward questions which she simply refused to answer. Rice reminded me of a clever student bullshitting her way through a book report using her Cliff Notes. She elaborated and obfuscated endlessly in an effort to fill that room with empty words, or as Bob Kerrey accurately described it, ‘a bunch of stuff someone would give at a seminar.’ “Please don’t filibuster me..’ he implored her to no avail, ‘It’s not fair to do that.” She kept going back to the talking points... ‘we did not have a silver bullet’ ... ‘we had a structural problem’ ... ‘we’d have moved heavan and earth’ ... ‘the threat warnings were from abroad’ ... ‘the president was tired of swatting flies.’

I watched this nonsense for nearly three hours, thunderstruck by her endless prattle. Honest to God I expected her to start saying; ‘thousand points of light ... stay the course.’

The first question set her off an a large ramble which included, as did her enormous opening statement, Clinton blaming and the now-suddenly-legendary concept that Bush was ‘tired of swatting flies’ and that he preferred instead to destroy the entire Al Quaeda network. This in spite of the fact that Rice couldn’t or wouldn’t cite one example of policy demonstrating his apparent intentions to destroy that network, or in fact impede it in any way. Nothing substantive was ever offered to back this up, not anything of paper, or other eye-witnesses to this statement - only evasiveness and escuse-spinning. I might be convinced if just one memo or set of minutes were offered proving that Bush actually said, ‘let’s not be swatting at flies.... let’s destroy the entire network.’

There was a terrible methodology being played out in this testimony. One with an ugly partisan stain on it. Condoleeza Rice flatly refused to answer any question posed by Democratic members of the panel, preferring instead to lecture and blather their time away, even to the point of rudely interrupting the committee members, talking over them, and at times even boldly telling them that, ‘your question should instead be this...”

The ONLY questions she would answer concisely and directly were those from the Republican members of the panel. I have heard reports that some of those members were briefed by the White House counsel on what their questions and answers should be. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but if it is it gives an air of conspiracy to this thing, one which defeats the entire purpose of these hearings, submerges it entirely in white house political spin-control.

Lee Hamilton asked: What could have we done to be more ready? She dodged that question too, citing expertly for the tenth time the things Bush’s staff tried to do, yet never mentioning anything that was specific. She preferred to use nugatory non-committal phrases like... ‘we were checking those things out.’

And did you hear her play the race-card? On HERSELF! During one of her endless time-wasting dissertations, Rice added this remark: "When our founding fathers said ‘we the people’ they didn’t mean me. So there have been times when we didn’t stand up for our ideals and values." What the hell was that about???

One of the very few direct questions Rice answered all morning was to clearly say ‘no’ when asked if it would have been possible to disrupt or destroy Bin Laden’s terror command network in Afghanistan without first securing Pakistan’s assistance. Yet meanwhile she alleges that Bush wanted to do something major and not minor. For several weeks now, she has been spinning this new mythology that Bush had been saying ‘I don’t want to swat at flies’ anymore. So where does that leave us?

Obviously that Bush had resolved to do nothing. Because if you don’t want to do anything small, and you are strategically prevented from doing anything large, what is left? Clearly, prior to some huge and disastrous event like 9/11 America lacked both the moral authority and political will to do anything major to carry out Bush’s purported agenda to ‘quit swatting at flies.’ Condi Rice has herself acknowledged that such a plan to destroy Al Quaeda would have been untenable in the pre 9/11 world.

Therefore by Rice’s own admission Bush did NOTHING to prepare America for domestic attacks. Bush did nothing to respond to Clark’s warnings, Tenet’s warnings, Sandy Berger’s warnings, or warnings from foreign intelligence. And obviously no suggestions were given to him by his national security advisor. No alerts went out to any agency that could have protected us, in spite of overwhelming amounts of information that pointed to impending attacks involving domestic air travel. It was enough information to convince John Ashcroft to quit flying on commercial airlines. Why wasn’t it enough of a threat for the rest of the country?

send comments via Email to me, D

A place to find out about Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=44767

This page will be updated as information is released by the Center for American Progress.
If needed just use www.americanprogress.org and go from there.

send comments via Email to me, D

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

BUSH REFUSES RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11 FAILURES

President Bush has told America many times that he
wants to "usher in an era
of personal responsibility" (1). Yet instead of
following former
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's lead and
admitting some
responsibility for overseeing the worst national
security failure in
American history, the White House has pushed its
allies to unleash a vicious
attack on Clarke. Instead of apologizing to the
families as Clarke did (2),
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) said
Clarke's apology "was not his
right, his privilege or his responsibility" (3).
Meanwhile, a Bush official
said Clarke's apology was "bull" (4).

Similarly, the President has told America he wants
a "society in which
people take responsibility for the decisions they
make" (5) instead of
"blaming somebody else." Yet the President still
refuses to own up to
specific decisions he and his Administration made
before 9/11 to
"de-emphasize terrorism" (6) as a priority,
terminate a key program to track
Al Qaeda suspects in the United States (7), and
"veto a request" (8) to put
more money into counterterrorism after the Bush
White House tried to slash
the FBI's counterterrorism budget.

The Administration also refused to take
responsibility for rejecting January
2001 recommendations (9) from the U.S. Government's
bipartisan Commission on
National Security (10) and instead waited five
months to create a
counterterrorism task force (11), which it then
never once convened (12).
When asked about this on CBS' Face the Nation,
Secretary of State Colin
Powell said only "I--I--I can't answer the specific
question" (13).

Sources:
1. "President Bush Discusses Progress in Education
in St. Louis",
01/05/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25354.
2. "Clarke's apology", Newsday, 03/25/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25355
9286.story?coll=ny-nationalnews-headlines.
3. "Frist's Comments on Clarke's Testimony", New
York Times, 03/26/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25356
position=.
4. "The Truth of the Matter", Time, 03/28/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25357.
5. "Remarks by the President at Bush-Cheney 2004
Reception", 01/29/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25358.
6. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25359.
7. "In the Months Before 9/11, Justice Department
Curtailed Highly
Classified Program to Monitor Al Qaeda Suspects in
the U.S.", Yahoo!,
03/21/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25360.
8. Freedom of Information Center, 05/27/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25359.
9. "We predicted it", Salon, 09/12/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25361.
10. US Commission on National Security,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25362.
11. Statement by the President, 05/08/2001,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25363.
12. Washington Post, 01/19/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25364.
13. Face the Nation, 03/28/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25365.

send comments via Email to me, D

Watchdogs Blast Proposed Bush Forest Policy Overhaul

Officials at Defenders of Wildlife, one of the nation's premiere environmental groups, are expressing increasing frustration over the failure of the U.S. Forest Service to release documents which may confirm that logging industry executives wielded the same kind of influence over proposed forest policy that the energy industry enjoyed with Vice President Cheney's secretive energy task force.

Early in its tenure, the Bush Administration began work on an overhaul of the National Forest Management Act, which governs 200 million acres of publicly owned forests. Seeking evidence that would shed light on the motivations behind the overhaul, Defenders of Wildlife and the Endangered Species Coalition filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit in October, 2002.

Defenders charges that Mark Rey, a longtime timber trade association official who is now President Bush's undersecretary for natural resources and environment in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), has been deliberately dragging his feet in response to requests for the documents.

"Bush's NFMA overhaul is the biggest-ever rewrite of our nation's forest management policies," said Defenders President Rodger Schlickeisen. "These regulations govern every decision that is made about every acre of national forest, and the Bush reforms cater precisely and blatantly to requests that have been made for years by the logging industry." Schlickeisen says the rewritten policies diminish public and scientific input in the planning process, gut many key wildlife protections, and allow increased logging on public land.

"They reverse even the protections that were put in place by the Reagan administration, including basic [National Environmental Policy Act] reviews and biodiversity standards," he added.

Defenders was further irked that Rey's office seemed to come down with a sudden case of amnesia when it told the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that it had no records whatsoever -- no transcripts, memos, emails, or calendar records -- documenting meetings between the agency and industry groups (or anyone else, for that matter) during the process of revising the forest policies.

The court agreed with Defenders' claim that USDA did "not meet their burden of conducting a reasonable search and justifying non-disclosure of exempted information." The court requested that Rey's office do a further search for information and give a more reasonable explanation for why certain documents should be withheld.

"We're going to comply with the court order," said Rey, but he insisted that "there's no need to reach beyond that to broader theories of bad faith and conspiracy, because the court didn't find them and they don't exist."

Defenders' Schlickeisen has his doubts. Last month, Rey told the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that substantial "modifications" are in the works, and the final draft is likely to be released in the next several months.

"They're probably consulting lawyers to try and make themselves least vulnerable to legal challenge," said Schlickeisen. "Because clearly if these new modifications are anything like what we've seen, they're illegal. And we've made it clear that we'll do what's necessary to prove it."

###

CORRECTION
An article in BushGreenwatch on April 5 misstated the position to which Ann Klee has been nominated at the Environmental Protection Agency. She has been nominated for EPA general counsel; Stephen Johnson, a career employee of the agency, has been nominated for deputy administrator. Ann Klee is currently general counsel to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton.

###

SOURCES:
[1] Defenders of Wildlife press release.

send comments via Email to me, D

Tom Paine.com on "Impeachable Offenses"

John Bonifaz is an attorney in Boston and the author of Warrior-King: The Case for Impeaching George W. Bush (NationBooks-NY, January 2004). Bob Fertik is the co-founder of democrats.com, an independent community of Democratic activists.

President George W. Bush—whose own election was dubious—has seized monarchical powers in sending this nation into war without any legitimate congressional declaration of war or equivalent congressional action. He has lied to the United States Congress and to the American people about the rationale for the war. He has imprisoned American citizens without charges and denied them access to lawyers and the courts. He has thus trampled on the United States Constitution and he has violated his oath of office.

This nation is at a crossroads. These are not simply issues to be debated in a presidential election. These are "high crimes" in the most profound meaning of the phrase, and they require the most serious of legal responses.

Our Constitution lays out a specific process for addressing high crimes committed by a president: impeachment. The time has come for Congress to investigate these crimes and begin impeachment proceedings. Our loyalty to our Constitution requires nothing less.

For the rest of the story:
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10176
Have add'd his website to the "List on the Left" as well as Al Franken's blog site. Take a look.

send comments via Email to me, D

Brit Hume speak from Aug. of 03

On August 26, 2003 Brit Hume said on Fox News:
“Two hundred seventy-seven U.S. soldiers have now died in Iraq, which means that statistically speaking U.S. soldiers have less of a chance of dying from all causes in Iraq than citizens have of being murdered in California, which is roughly the same geographical size. The most recent statistics indicate California has more than 2300 homicides each year, which means about 6.6 murders each day. Meanwhile, U.S. troops have been in Iraq for 160 days, which means they’re incurring about 1.7 deaths, including illness and accidents each day.”
This is a grotesque distortion of fact. As Howard Kurtz reported in the Washington Post, “California has 34 million people, but there are 145,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.” As Buzzflash.com calculated, this means that U.S. troops in Iraq at that time were 66 times more likely to die than Californians were likely to be murdered.

When Kurtz asked him about his comment, Hume responded: "Admittedly it was a crude comparison, but it was illustrative of something."

I agree.

It was illustrative of how Hume shills for this administration, playing down the risk to our troops. It’s illustrative of how shameless Brit Hume is, and how shameless Fox News is. It’s been almost seven months since Hume said this, and he hasn’t retracted it.

Mr. Hume should apologize to our troops and their families for his deliberately misleading statement. Write Brit Hume and demand that he apologize at Special@foxnews.com, or call Fox News at 1-888-369-4762. I don’t want to harass them or jam their phones--be polite, but clear.
END and taken from The Al Franken's blog of 4-07-04.

send comments via Email to me, D

CAl Gov. Calls Reformers' objectivity called into question

SACRAMENTO - To fix California's strife-ridden prisons, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has turned to some longtime correctional officials who helped create the very system he has vowed to change.

Another turncoat? SOME OFFICIALS PICKED BY GOVERNOR ARE PART OF PROBLEM, CRITICS SAY

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/8365685.htm

send comments via Email to me, D

Buffoon...

Bush Compares a Guest to His Mother
Tue Apr 6, 6:23 PM ET Add Strange News - AP to My Yahoo!

EL DORADO, Ark. - President Bush (news - web sites) has a penchant for dishing out good-natured insults, and usually the victim laughs along. But Sammie Briery didn't seem much amused when Bush fired one at her Tuesday.

Bush was wrapping up a town hall-style appearance at South Arkansas Community College when he let the jest fly. It was a mother joke, a blonde joke and an insult all in one.

"You and my mother go to the same hair-dye person," Bush said to Briery, whose blondish bob bore little resemblance to Barbara Bush's shock of white hair.

The audience in the gymnasium laughed, and Briery smiled, but replied firmly: "President Bush, I'm a natural blonde."

"Oh, yes," Bush agreed.

"I'm just a natural blonde," she repeated.

"I couldn't help myself, sorry," Bush shrugged.

With that, Bush moved quickly to end the session. He turned to Bob Watson, superintendent of the El Dorado Public Schools — who had opened the meeting by inadvertently insulting Bush.

"Governor — excuse me, President," Watson said.

Bush muttered, "How quickly they forget."

When Watson offered to shake Bush's hand, the president shot back: "Just don't hug me."

send comments via Email to me, D

Powell rebukes Kennedy in rare political foray

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US Secretary of State Colin Powell rebuked a leading Democratic senator for comparing the war in Iraq to Vietnam and suggesting President George W. Bush's policies had incited hatred against the United States.

In a rare foray into politics, Powell said Senator Ted Kennedy, an outspoken Bush opponent and supporter of Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites), should be "more restrained and careful" when discussing Iraq and the war on terrorism.

The rest of the story

And by the way, agree with Powell here, Kennedy should not have said that. He should have say that Bush is acting just like Hitler. Go read your history books again on prewar Germany. If you dare. Hitler suspended his people's rights and took them to war. Bush is just doing the same things only in a differant order. WE'll never get these Rights back people. We are being taken over. sheep!

send comments via Email to me, D

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

BUSH CAN'T PROVIDE PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS JOBS CLAIM

As President Bush tours the country touting his
economic record, he is
trying to shift the blame for the more than 2
million jobs that have been
lost since he took office (1). Specifically, he has
repeatedly claimed,
"over a million jobs were lost because of the
[9/11] attack" (2). But a new
report shows that there are no statistics to
support this assertion, and
that the White House itself cannot provide any
evidence that this is the
case.

According to the Bureau of National Affairs,
"White House officials were
unable to point to any specific information that
supports a direct link
between massive job losses and the attacks" (3).
While one White House
spokeswoman claimed that the President's statements
were "supported by the
Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics
(BLS)," that agency's
associate commissioner "said BLS has not compiled
any specific study on jobs
which were lost specifically because of the Sept.
11 attacks."

Sources:
1. "Bush Record on The Economy and Jobs", Committee
on Education and the
Workforce, 02/26/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25618.
2. President Bush Discusses Job Training and the
Economy in NY, 03/11/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25619.
3. Bureau of National Affairs, 03/22/2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11

The White House continues to deny that the
president immediately began planning an invasion of Iraq in
the days after 9/11, calling such charges
"revisionist history" (1) and claiming Iraq was "to the
side"(2) immediately after the attacks. But new
revelations by a former top British official confirm
that, immediately after 9/11, President Bush started
planning to use the terrorist attacks as a
justification for war in Iraq, despite having no proof that
Iraq had any connection to Al Qaeda or 9/11. (3)

According to a report in the new edition of Vanity
Fair, former British Ambassador to the United
States Christopher Meyer said that President Bush made
clear at a dinner (4) with Prime Minister Tony Blair
nine days after the 9/11 attacks that he wanted to
confront Iraq. The assertion is corroborated by the
Washington Post, which reported that President Bush
personally signed a two-and-a-half page directive
on September 17th, 2001 ordering the Pentagon to
begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. (5) The
assertion is also corroborated by CBS News, which reported
on September 4, 2002 that, five hours after the
9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was
telling his aides to come up with plans for striking
Iraq."(6) The account by the former British
Ambassador confirms similar accounts by former Bush
counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury
Secretary Paul O'Neill.

The result of President Bush's preoccupation with
Iraq has been dramatic: the diversion of critical
resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama
bin Laden/Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As reported by USA
Today, "In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces
Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled
out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan
to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." (7)
Similarly, Senator Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that,
in February 2002, a senior military commander told
him, "We are moving military and intelligence
personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready
for a future war in Iraq." (8) That has left many
dangerous terrorists still at large, and the UN now
reporting that the country is "in danger of
reverting to a terrorist breeding ground." (9)

Read More about Bush Administration Distortion at
Misleader.org »
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26544

Sources:

1. White House Press Briefing, 3/23/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26545.

2. "Neither Silent Nor a Public Witness,"
Washington Post, 3/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26546.

3. " Doubts cast on efforts to link Saddam,
al-Qaida," Knight-Ridder, 3/2/04,

http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26547

4. "Report Details Bush-Blair Meeting on Iraq,"
Associated Press, 4/4/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26548

5. "U.S. Decision On Iraq Has Puzzling Past,"
Washington Post, 1/12/03,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26549

6. "Plans For Iraq Attack Began On 9/11," CBS News,
9/4/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26550

7. Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA
Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26551

8. Senator Bob Graham Remarks to the Council on
Foreign Relations," Council on Foreign Relations,
3/26/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26552

9. "UN warns on Aghanistan reverting to terrorism
," Financial Times, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=26553

send comments via Email to me, D

Free Speech in Danger: FEC Rule Change Would Silence Hundreds of Activist Groups

Last month the Federal Elections Commission voted 5-1 to consider rule changes that could drastically alter the legal status of many activist nonprofits, including environmental organizations.

If the proposal rules are approved, groups across the political spectrum may be forced to give up their core advocacy work or conform to stringent fundraising and financial reporting requirements usually reserved for political committees.

Further, the FEC could apply the rule change retroactively, in the middle of the election year, throwing the legality of nonprofit program, fundraising and reporting efforts into chaos.[1]

According to People For the American Way, "The chilling effect of the proposed rules on free speech cannot be overstated. Merely expressing an opinion about an officeholder's policies could turn a nonprofit group overnight into a federally regulated political committee with crippling fund-raising restrictions."[2]

The FEC is considering this change in response to pressure from a Republican political committee, "Americans for a Better Country."[3] The group was organized last year specifically to establish "an aggressive voter-mobilization and issue ad campaign to out-raise and out-spend ... the liberal groups whose stated mission is the defeat of George Bush."[4]

The proposed FEC rule change comes amidst continuing actions by the Bush Administration to suppress dissenting views, including a prosecution of Greenpeace in federal court.

As reported by BushGreenwatch, the Ashcroft Justice Department dredged up an obscure 1872 law against "sailor-mongering" to indict Greenpeace on federal felony charges after activists boarded a ship carrying illegal mahogany from Brazil to Miami and hung a banner reading, "President Bush: Stop Illegal Logging." The case is considered a bellwether for the future of free speech and peaceful protest in the U.S.

Greenpeace filed for a dismissal of the case in December. A ruling is expected by April 9. Greenpeace has also filed a motion for a trial by jury should the case go to court, rather than having the case heard only by a judge, as requested by the Justice Department. "We want the public to hear the whole story," says Greenpeace's Nancy Hwa.

###

TAKE ACTION!
Send a comment opposing the rule change to the FEC. Comments should be addressed to Ms. Mai T. Dinh, Acting Assistant General Counsel, and must include the full name, electronic mail address, and postal service address of the commenter. The comments period ends on April 9: politicalcommitteestatus@fec.gov.

###

SOURCES:
[1] MoveOn.org action alert.
[2] People for the American Way FEC Working Group.
[3] Common Cause Press Release.
[4] "Conservative Spotlight: Americans for a Better Country," Human Events Online.

send comments via Email to me, D

Monday, April 05, 2004

BUSH REFUSES TO FULLY FUND FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISTS

President Bush has repeatedly said he is committed
to doing whatever it
takes to "cut off terrorist finances" in order to
win the War on Terror (1).
But according to a new report, the president is
trying to kill a desperate
request by his own officials to increase the number
of investigators needed
to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda.

The New York Times reports the president is trying
to eliminate a $12
million request by the IRS, which says it needs the
small injection of new
money "to increase by 50% the number of criminal
financial investigators"
necessary to do its part in the fight against
terrorism (2). The president
could easily fund the program by reducing the tax
cuts he wants to give to
the 200,000 millionaires in America: instead of
giving these millionaires an
average tax cut of $88,326 he could simply reduce
that tax cut by $60,
giving them instead $88,266, while using the
savings to fully fund the IRS
request (3). Instead, President Bush is pushing
more than $1 trillion in new
tax cuts, while ignoring the request (4).

The effort to deny the IRS needed counterterrorism
funds is just the latest
example of the president grossly underfunding the
protection of America. The
Washington Post reported last week that immediately
after 9/11, the White
House "cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency
request for counterterrorism
funds by the FBI" (5).

Sources:
1. President Recaps Historic Week in Domestic and
Foreign Affairs,
11/23/2002,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25857.
2. "I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators
Is Denied", New York
Times, 03/31/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25858.
3. "HOYER ON THE HOMELAND SECURITY BILL: A One
Billion Dollar Trade-Off",
06/24/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25859.
4. "Bush wants tax cuts to stay", Washington Times,
01/20/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25860.
5. "FBI Budget Squeezed After 9/11", Washington
Post, 03/22/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2460565&l=25861.

send comments via Email to me, D

EPA Deputy Administrator Nominee Brings Checkered Record

Ann Klee, general counsel to Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton, has been nominated by the Bush Administration to become deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). If approved she would become second-in-command, under EPA Administrator Mike Leavitt.

Klee is a Washington veteran with a long history representing conservative interests on environmental issues. After working as a lawyer in Washington for several years, Klee became environmental counsel to Senator Dirk Kempthorne (R-ID) in 1995. Now governor of Idaho, Kempthorne is an outspoken opponent of many federal environmental laws and programs.[1]

In 1997, Klee joined the staff of the powerful Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee (EPW), where she was a central figure in a 1998 attempt to rewrite (i.e. weaken) the Endangered Species Act. Klee became chief counsel of EPW in 1999, and went on to lead the Bush Department of Interior transition team after the 2000 election. In 2001 she was appointed to her current post at Interior.

Klee's name surfaces in connection with controversial actions by the Bush administration.

In 2001, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) named Klee and several other Interior staffers in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) filing related to Vice President Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force. NRDC sought appointment calendars, correspondence, notes and minutes of meetings between Interior officials and energy industry representatives. The FOIA was denied. NRDC again named Klee when it appealed the decision in 2002.
That same year, Interior Secretary Gale Norton delivered misleading testimony to a Senate committee about the impact on caribou if drilling were to occur in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It turned out that Klee and a colleague had edited out scientific data provided by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.[2]
In October 2002, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), requested an investigation into possible conflicts of interest amongst Interior officials after Secretary Norton approved the Glamis Imperial Project -- an open-pit gold mine in southeastern California that had been blocked by Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior under President Clinton.[2] Boxer's request to DOI Inspector General Earl Devaney noted that "Counsel to the Secretary Ann Klee worked for the American Mining Congress and is married to a partner in the law firm that represents Glamis Gold Ltd."[3] However, Devaney cleared the officials in 2003.
Klee's most public role to date has been as chair of the South Florida Task Force working on Everglades restoration, where she earned praise from Florida Audubon's April Gromnicki. "As an environmental advocate I wouldn't say we've always agreed, but under her leadership we've seen a consistent commitment to Everglades restoration."

On the other hand, "Klee appears personally responsible for several "no jeopardy" decisions under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act [official Interior Department opinions which allow industrial development in habitats crucial to endangered species] that put animals such as the Florida panther, the woodland caribou, and the Sonoran pronghorn antelope at the brink of extinction," William Snape, general counsel for Defenders of Wildlife, told BushGreenwatch.

Jaime Rappaport Clark, executive vice president of Defenders of Wildlife and former director of the Fish and Wildlife Service under President Clinton, encountered Klee often during the late 1990s. "Ann Klee is bright, she listens, and she can navigate politics and push direction," Clark told BushGreenwatch. "It's hard to remember or imagine any time when I've agreed with Ann on a conservation issue. But I can't say she's unqualified for the job at the EPA, under the current administration."

Klee's appointment to EPA is currently up for confirmation by the Senate. But Vermont Independent Jim Jeffords and several Democratic senators plan to block hers and other pending EPA nominations. The senators are concerned that more than two years' worth of information requests to EPA regarding various Bush administration environmental policies have gone largely unanswered.[4]

###

SOURCES:
[1] “Dirk Kempthorne, the Dems’ Godsend,” Slate, Aug. 5, 2003.
[2] "Norton's ANWR portrait faulted," Washington Post, Oct. 21, 2001.
[3] "Boxer Calls For Probe of Mine Permit," Washington Post, Oct. 5, 2002.
[4] "Bush's New Assault on Sacred Lands," Christopher McLeod, Earth Island Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, Summer 2003.
[5] "Wyden to block EPA nominee; Dems consider more holds," Darren Samuelsohn, Greenwire, Mar. 11, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Bush Opens Door to More Coal Burning

The second story in a two part series.

In a little-noticed development with potentially devastating consequences for energy consumers, public health and the environment, the Bush Administration has been laying the groundwork for a resurgence of coal-fired power generation across the nation.

Many of the Administration's actions to roll back the Clean Air Act -- such as its weakening of New Source Review rules (rules requiring better emission controls) and its retreat on regulating mercury emissions -- are custom tailored for the coal industry. Coal-burning power plants are the largest single source of mercury and greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.[1]

With these key regulatory victories under its belt, the coal industry is leading a gold rush to acquire federal permits for coal-fired power plants before it loses control of the White House to a more public-health-friendly administration. Since Bush took office, more than 94 new coal-fired power plants have reached the planning and permitting stages, according to government sources and media reports.

"I think most Americans would be shocked that utilities are dragging the 19th century into the 21st century," says Dan Becker, director of global warming and energy program at the Sierra Club.[2]

Industry lobbyists, many of them working from inside the administration, claim that the resurgence of coal will be good for consumers. They point out, correctly, that North America sits on abundant coal reserves. Electricity generated from burning coal has been the cheapest domestic source of power since the industrial revolution; roughly 50 percent of the power produced in the U.S. still comes from coal.

But what industry officials fail to mention is the certainty that the federal government will eventually have to enact carbon and mercury regulations. According to the EPA, eight percent of American women of child-bearing age have enough mercury in their blood to pose a significant risk of nervous system damage to their children. And roughly 630,000, or 15 percent of all babies born in the U.S. each year, are exposed to dangerous levels of mercury in the womb.[3]

While President Bush has abandoned a Clinton-era proposal to virtually eliminate mercury emissions from coal plants, political pressure from health advocates will inevitably force the issue. Once mercury regulations are enacted, all coal facilities -- both newer, more efficient plants and the old polluting behemoths -- will be forced to invest in expensive technology to remove mercury from their smokestack emissions.

The upshot: if the White House enacts strong mercury regulations before the new slate of coal-fired power plants is approved, plant proponents will have to include the costs of compliance in their applications to rate-setting agencies. But if the plants are approved before stronger mercury rules are enacted, the eventual costs of removing mercury from smokestack emissions will be passed on to consumers in the form of escalating electricity costs.

The tragedy is that, with meaningful investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy technology, the U.S. could avoid building any new coal generation facilities -- and could begin to shut down some plants currently in operation. But unless President Bush undergoes a miraculous change of priorities, American consumers can count on getting burned.

###

SOURCES:
[1] "How industry won the battle of pollution control at EPA," New York Times, Mar. 6, 2004.
[2] "America's New Coal Rush," Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 26, 2004.
[3] "Estimate of Fetuses Exposed to High Mercury Doubles," Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 2004.

send comments via Email to me, D

the-peoples-patriot, a political Blog

Saturday, April 10, 2004

A MESSAGE TO AMERICA'S STUDENTS FROM RALPH NADER

Friday, April 09, 2004

Bush Administration Continues to Lobby Against Stronger EU Chemical Rules

This section contains statements and speeches by Ms. Streisand.

CHENEY COMES ON THE FACTOR TO DEFEND WH REFUSAL TO RELEASE CONDI SPEECH by Al Franken, with Ben Wikler and Ayo Griffin 4/9/2004 at 13:47

Thursday, April 08, 2004

RICE YET TO ANSWER FOR TWO DISHONEST STATEMENTS

Bush Administration Scores "F" on Children's Health

posted by Adam1010

A place to find out about Rice Testimony Before 9/11 Commission

Wednesday, April 07, 2004

BUSH REFUSES RESPONSIBILITY FOR 9/11 FAILURES

Watchdogs Blast Proposed Bush Forest Policy Overhaul

Tom Paine.com on "Impeachable Offenses"

Brit Hume speak from Aug. of 03

CAl Gov. Calls Reformers' objectivity called into question

Buffoon...

Powell rebukes Kennedy in rare political foray

Tuesday, April 06, 2004

BUSH CAN'T PROVIDE PROOF TO SUPPORT HIS JOBS CLAIM

New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11

Free Speech in Danger: FEC Rule Change Would Silence Hundreds of Activist Groups

Monday, April 05, 2004

BUSH REFUSES TO FULLY FUND FIGHT AGAINST TERRORISTS

EPA Deputy Administrator Nominee Brings Checkered Record

Sunday, April 04, 2004

Bush Opens Door to More Coal Burning

Agree or not, talking it over is better...

Saturday Night Live - Palin / Hillary Open

Live feed from my webcam via www.stickam.com

Blog Archive

Links

About Me

Other places you can find me or that I use.

Links

archives