No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

More on Bush's statements to get his war

This is what John Dean said about Bush's State of the Union speech on July 18, 2003:

What I found, in critically examining Bush's evidence, is not pretty. The African uranium matter is merely indicative of larger problems, and troubling questions of potential and widespread criminality when taking the nation to war. It appears that not only the Niger uranium hoax, but most everything else that Bush said about Saddam Hussein's weapons was false, fabricated, exaggerated, or phony.

Bush repeatedly, in his State of the Union, presented beliefs, estimates, and educated guesses as established fact. Genuine facts are truths that can be known or are observable, and the distance between fact and belief is uncertainty, which can be infinite. Authentic facts are not based on hopes or wishes or even probabilities. Now it is little wonder that none of these purported WMDs has been discovered in Iraq.

So egregious and serious are Bush's misrepresentations that they appear to be a deliberate effort to mislead Congress and the public. So arrogant and secretive is the Bush White House that only a special prosecutor can effectively answer and address these troubling matters. Since the Independent Counsel statute has expired, the burden is on President Bush to appoint a special prosecutor - and if he fails to do so, he should be held accountable by Congress and the public.

He goes into detail on each of several assertions Bush made. Read the entire article.
FindLaw
posted by Richard at 2:44 PM

 

Why is Iraqi reconstruction so inefficient?

According to Paul Krugman:

Cronyism is an important factor in our Iraqi debacle. It's not just that reconstruction is much more expensive than it should be. The really important thing is that cronyism is warping policy: by treating contracts as prizes to be handed to their friends, administration officials are delaying Iraq's recovery, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This is the full editorial:
New York Times. Registration is required, and they archive it after 7 days.
posted by Richard at 5:16 AM

 

The Pentagon asks MacDill's Special Operations to tuck an extra $20-million into its budget until it's needed.

Military stashes covert millions
By PAUL DE LA GARZA, Times Staff Writer
Published September 28, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TAMPA - The U.S. Special Operations Command at MacDill Air Force Base inflated budget proposals at the Pentagon's request last year to hide $20-million from Congress, according to documents obtained by the St. Petersburg Times.

Special Operations officials divided the money among six projects so the money would not attract attention. They also instructed their own budget analysts not to mention it during briefings with congressional aides, the documents show.

The Pentagon's inspector general has launched an investigation. House Appropriations Chairman C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, said he will ask Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld during a hearing Tuesday whether the Pentagon intentionally deceived Congress.

"That doesn't set well with me," Young said. "We don't operate like that."

The investigation centers on an agreement between the Pentagon comptroller's office in Washington and the Special Operations Command comptroller at MacDill.

The plan, according to defense officials and documents obtained by the Times, called for Special Operations to pad its proposed budget by $20-million so the money could be used later by the Pentagon for some other purpose. The Pentagon initially wanted Special Operations to hide $40-million. The Special Operations Command, which oversees the nation's secret commando units, refused.

It is unclear what the Pentagon intended to do with the $20-million, or what became of the money. Young surmised that the money could have been used as a contingency fund, available to Rumsfeld to use at his discretion. While $20-million is relatively modest in a Pentagon budget of almost $400-billion, Young said, if all the armed services are doing it the amount could grow significantly.

"I don't know if it's been done before," he said, "or if it's common practice with the secretary."

Gen. Bryan D. "Doug" Brown, who became the Special Operations commander at MacDill earlier this month, declined to comment and cited the ongoing investigation. Brown, who had been the deputy commander, said he requested that the Pentagon inspector general investigate the allegations.

Col. Samuel Taylor, the Special Operations spokesman, said the command is cooperating with investigators.

"The only thing I can tell you is it is not a standard practice for SoCom to improperly utilize funding," he said, "and the IG investigation will determine if there is something inappropriate in this situation."

The agreement between the Pentagon officials in Washington and Special Operations officials in Tampa is spelled out in an e-mail distributed by SoCom comptroller Elaine Kingston to colleagues on Feb. 11, 2002.

In the e-mail, Kingston wrote that she received a call from someone in the Pentagon comptroller's office. The caller, who is not identified in the e-mail, asked if the Special Operations Command could "park" $40-million of research and development money in its proposed budget for the 2003 fiscal year, which ends Tuesday.

"They needed an answer in 5 minutes," Kingston wrote. "The agency they had it parked with had a problem and couldn't do it."

Kingston wrote that "there was no way for us to park $40M." She wrote that she and Deborah Kiser, SoCom's investment appropriations budget chief, found six programs where they could add $20-million.

The programs listed in the e-mail include improvements to missile warning systems on Special Operations aircraft, infrared equipment on helicopters and radar systems. The $20-million was distributed in amounts as small as $2-million and as large as $5-million.

In her e-mail, Kingston coached colleagues on how to account for the additional money and avoid attracting attention to it in congressional briefings.

"I just wanted to follow up with an e-mail to ensure that the staffer briefing slides for these programs DO include these funds and that the briefer not highlight or discuss them during the staffer briefings," she wrote.

"In other words, we can't say "my original program was XX but OSD parked some money in it so now it's YY,' " Kingston wrote, using the abbreviation for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. "We are doing a favor for OSD which we hope will benefit the command if we should need additional (research and development) in FY03."

Special Operations chose programs that already were getting spending increases and added small amounts so they would not stand out, Kingston wrote.

Young said he is confident Special Operations got the additional $20-million it requested. He said he would investigate what became of the money.

The Anti-Deficiency Act says money appropriated by Congress can only be used for the purpose authorized by Congress. There are other federal laws and regulations that prohibit submitting fraudulent budget documents to Congress.

Young said he plans to ask Rumsfeld about the case during a hearing Tuesday on President Bush's $87-billion funding request for Iraq.

The Pentagon's inspector general began an audit, or a preliminary investigation, in August. In a letter dated Aug. 6 to Gen. Charles Holland, the Special Operations commander who has since retired, the inspector general said, "Our objective will be to review the allegations to the Defense Hotline concerning funds "parked' at the U.S. Special Operations Command by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)."

Special Operations officials said inspector general investigators have visited MacDill.

Young said he did not know if "parking" money as described in the Special Operations e-mail is common throughout the Department of Defense or an unusual occurence.

"What bothers me is that Congress wasn't notified," Young said. "Constitutionally, Congress needs to be notified of things like this."

But Kingston, the Special Operations comptroller, began her e-mail by assuring colleagues that the request by the Pentagon comptroller was not unusual.

"It is common practice for OSD comptroller to keep small withholds of funds in each appropriation to cover pop up emergencies throughout the year of execution," she wrote. "So OSD goes out to all of the services and (defensewide) agencies to ask for help in justifying these dollars against existing programs in the budget."

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, said it was not familiar with the practice outlined by Kingston.

Winslow Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information and a former national defense analyst with the Senate Budget Committee, said Kingston's use of the term "park" to describe hiding Pentagon funds suggested it was common practice.

"It is the consequence of an overstuffed budget," Wheeler said.

He characterized Pentagon recordkeeping as "incompetent," with budget officials routinely unable to keep track of expenditures.

In the wake of 9/11, the special operations forces have become favorites of Rumsfeld and the White House. The 46,000 elite commandos have been at the forefront of the war on terror and played crucial roles in the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Rather than relying on large armies, the Bush administration says unconventional forces are best prepared to fight terrorists. As a result, the SoCom mission is shifting, with more responsibility, more people, more weapons and a lot more money.

Announcing the changes earlier in the year, Rumsfeld said, "The global nature of the war, the nature of the enemy and the need for fast, efficient operations in hunting down and rooting out terrorist networks around the world have all contributed to the need for an expanded role for the special operations forces."

Last year, special ops units operated in more than 150 countries. Often in concert with the CIA, special operators are chasing terrorists, weapons of mass destruction and drug runners.

- Paul de la Garza can be reached at 813 226-3432, or at delagarza@sptimes.com

© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
posted by Richard at 2:13 PM

 

A Democrat in Texas

A Heartening Visit to Texas, Home of the Original Bush Whoppers
September 24, 2003
By Bernard Weiner, The Crisis Papers

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a man with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware

I think it's time we stop, children, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down.

(from "For What It's Worth," by Stephen Stills, 1966)

HOUSTON - Those lines from the '60s anthem, as popularized by the band
Buffalo Springfield, have been running around my brain ever since I
got to Texas on this abbreviated speaking tour. Something indeed is
happening here in this country, and this city is a good example.

I'm here to give an address to ROADwomen (River Oaks Area Democratic
Women), the prestigious organization of Democratic activists that
provides a moral compass for many progressive voters in the Lone Star
State. The day before, William Rivers Pitt, that sterling
writer/editor from Truthout (and author of The Greatest Sedition is
Silence, recently released, and The War on Iraq, with Scott Ritter),
was in town speaking at another event. The day before that, Dennis
Kucinich was in Houston, running from meeting to meeting to stir up
support for his progressive campaign.

Pitt, Kucinich - two of my heroes in the struggle - and me,
representing The Crisis Papers, all in the same Texas city at the same
time. (The New York Times' Paul Krugman, perhaps America's most
important columnist, is due shortly.) Something's going on here, and
though it's still not clear what, the haze is lifting more and more
each day.

Texas isn't exactly Democrat country. It's easy being liberal or
progressive in San Francisco, where I live. Not in Texas, except maybe
in Austin and parts of Houston. This is Bush-family country (one flies
into George Bush Intercontinental Airport), and Democrats are the
despised, humiliated enemy in most of the state.

No wonder Tom Delay and Karl Rove are trying to crush them, destroy
even their limited effectiveness. Looks bad to have Democrats standing
up to the Bush machine in the family's home state. So the Republican
plan to railroad an illegal pro-GOP redistricting plan through the
Texas legislature is moving ahead full-speed, even though the
Democratic Senators carried on a daring campaign to stop the move, by
twice fleeing the state in order to deny the GOP a quorum to pass it.
(The issue then will move back into the courts, to settle the legality
of the Republican takeover; similar things are happening in California
with regard to the recall.)

The Democrats I met here on my brief, three-day stay are quite aware
of the forces they're up against. They realize things have changed
muchly since the heady days when Democrat Ann Richards - she of the
brilliant fresh mouth - was governor. The Democrats now definitely are
in the minority, and are treated roughly by their Republican
opponents.

But the glorious thing is that the Dems, including those I ran into,
are still kicking and fighting - with fellow Texans Molly Ivins and
Jim Hightower as wonderful role models - even though it's often a
losing battle. They're battling on issues ranging from the Iraq war to
school textbooks (denuded of references to geologic evolution:
"millions of years ago" becomes "many years ago"), from redistricting
proposals to pollution-control. I stand in admiration and awe for
their courage and tenacity.

I got to meet such ROAD activists as Dalia Stokes and Charlcye Sells -
and fellow troublemakers Charlotte Coffelt, Muffie Moroney, Bobbie
Bayless, James Sells, Stan Merriman, and a host of others - and they
are bright, determined beacons of light in the dark Republican
wilderness that is contemporary Texas politics.

There's battle lines being drawn
Nobody's right if everybody's wrong
Young people speaking their minds
Getting so much resistance from behind

I think it's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side

It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

William Rivers Pitt and I bumped into each other in the lobby of KPFT,
the admirable Pacifica radio station in Houston. The two of us had
communicated via email for a long time, and finally got to put faces
to names. Pitt was being interviewed prior to his presentation that
evening at an activists' gathering at a local restaurant; I was being
interviewed in another studio, by Pokey Anderson, a political-savvy
woman with a wealth of vital information at her fingertips.

That evening, I got to see Pitt in action. The place was packed with
mainly young activist types. Pitt, dressed in black, swigged beers and
smoked cigarettes onstage as he lit into the Bush Administration for
its many crimes and misdemeanors. His approach was a cross between
tough political discourse, prosecutorial anger, and stand-up comedy.
This guy was GOOD! And he dealt felicitously with the shouted-out
comments from the boisterous crowd.

At one point, he asked the audience how many were aware of PNAC, the
Project for the New American Century. Nearly every hand in the place
was raised. I was overjoyed to see that these Houstonites were hip to
this too-little-known dirty secret in the Republican Party, and how
they reacted quickly to Pitt's generalized comments about the
organization of extreme neoconservatives. But I also was wondering how
my speech would be received the following evening, since PNAC was the
main topic I was talking about and I didn't want to bore folks with
information with which they already were familiar.

But I had no need to worry. Though a good many in the packed ROADwomen
audience had heard of the neo-conservative movement and PNAC, many had
not - and, besides, I was filling in a lot of the blanks by quoting
directly from PNAC documents. To read the full speech, click here:
http://www.crisispapers.org/Editorials/roadwomen.htm
The audience seemed to be truly interested in the heavy material I was
laying on them - as well as in the final, more hopeful part of my
talk, about the things we all could do to ensure Bush's defeat in 2004
- and the Q&A session that followed was filled with intelligent
queries and commentary. I left heartened by the possibility that even
in Texas, Bush was vulnerable. (At dinner later, I was told about the
Republican couple at a recent precinct polling place who announced out
of the blue as they were exiting that they had voted for the GOP
presidential candidate for the past 21 years but would not be voting
for Bush in 2004.)

Which reminded me of the recent letter from a Kansas reader to The
Crisis Papers, and to recent letters to the editor of the Idaho
Statesman. These are two conservative-leaning states from the GOP side
of the ledger, but the anger toward and suspicion of Bush are palpable
and, one can hope, indicative of his vulnerability in those states as
well.

Here's the Kansas letter:

"Here in conservative Wichita, the local ABC affiliate today polled
its viewers as to whether Bush was on the right track in his
handling of Iraq, or was leading us in the wrong direction. The
results:

Based on last night's speech, do you believe President Bush is on
track with his policy toward Iraq? Yes 39.7 %, No 60.3 %.

It isn't scientific, but results like that in Kansas are
significant." (Jerry Policoff)

And here are excerpts from a sampling of Idaho Statesman
letters-to-the-editor from September 11, 2003:

"For two years, the Bush Administration has exploited the attacks
of September 11, 2001, to further its political agenda.

Just six weeks after Sept. 11, Bush described the war on terrorism
as 'very long struggle against evil,' then declared: 'Now, there's
another front on the war, as well, and that's our economy.' He then
advanced a proposal to cut taxes for the wealthiest
Americans...Regime change should begin at home." (Donald Kern,
Boise)

"...I felt bitter to read that Bush opened several airports in
those post-crash days to allow wealthy Saudis - including the
relatives of Osama bin Laden - to fly out of the country. Some
people spent the aftermath of 9/11 at Ground Zero, comforting
victims, looking for bodies, trying to restore order amid the chaos
and carnage.

They must feel bitter to read that, several days after the crash,
the Bush administration gave false assurances about the air quality
at the crash site. According to a recent Environmental Protection
Agency report, the agency did not have enough information to
determine whether conditions at Ground Zero posed a health risk.
Bush told the EPA to report it was safe to breathe the air, even
though the EPA had no basis for saying so.

After 9/11, many people sought reasssurance and wanted a hero. Some
made Bush that hero. But the real heroes risked their life at
Ground Zero. Bush betrayed those heroes by putting their lives at
risk with false information." (Peggy Jenkins, Deary)

"The legislation euphemistically referred to the 'the Patriot Act'
would be better dubbed 'Operation Eroding Freedom.'...That Ashcroft
chose not to allow 'the people' to attend his speaking tour
suggests a misguided ego (or insecurity) not seen since Joseph
McCarthy....I cll upon all citizens of Idaho to reject this thinly
disguised over-reaching of power." (Deanna C. Davis, Nampa)

"The Boise City Council will hold a public meeting on a resolution
to "choose" not to implement certain powers granted by the
unquestionably fascist Patriot Act...Tell them you want your
constitutional rights back. Reject fascism in America." (Robert
Blurton, Boise)

In sum, all across the country, people are speaking their minds, and
what they have to say, more and more, does not offer support for the
extremist policies of Bush&Co. It's time to take the country back in
2004. That means educating ourselves and then taking action. Everybody
look what's going down, and then organize, Organize, ORGANIZE!

Bernard Weiner, Ph.D., has taught American government & international
relations at Western Washington University and San Diego State
University. A former writer-editor with the San Francisco Chronicle
for nearly 20 years, he currently is co-editor of the progressive
website The Crisis Papers
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/09/24_texas.html
_____________________________________________________________________

George W. Bush - A Black & White mind in a Technicolor world
posted by Richard at 2:30 PM