Iraq timeline - Christian Coalition tax policy for Iraq

Politicians Pander to a super stupid electorate : "Gas prices too high" NO POLITICAL COURAGE – Democrats and Republicans both afraid. We need gas taxes, not low gas prices to develop alternative fuels with markets , pork free, instead of subsidy-based. Avoid dead marines for the next 50 years. Americans are as averse to education or serious thought as an AttentionDeficitDisorder 5 year old "Education is the only commodity where people want as little as they can get for their money"
Fox News anchor & Bush new press secretary says : Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” – “No president has looked this impotent this long .... – Bush “has given the impression that [he] is more eager to please than lead, and that political opponents can get their way if they simply dig in their heels and behave like petulant trust-fund brats, demanding money and favor — now!” [9/30/05] – “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” “The president doesn’t seem to give a rip about spending restraint.” – “Bush, for all his personal appeal, ultimately bolstered his detractors’ claims that he didn’t have the drive and work ethic to succeed.” [11/16/00] – “George W. Bush ........ stunned a friendly audience by barking out absurd and inappropriate words, like a soul tortured with Tourette’s.” “He recently tried to dazzle reporters by discussing the vagaries of Congressional Budget Office economic forecasts, but his recitation of numbers proved so bewildering that not even his aides could produce a comprehensible translation. The English Language has become a minefield for the man, whose malaprops make him the political heir not of Ronald Reagan, but Norm Crosby.”
Bush43 is not a Conservative – he spends like a drunken sailor as noted above. Every one of you has a mortgage of over $150,000 in the national debt alone. In promised spending in the incredibly pork-ridden medicare drug benefit you have ied


B43 does not like science at least when it is not convenient to his campaign donors. He has feelings rather than thoughts . "I will not argue with myself" Complains "My advisors are trying to nuance me". Takes pride in making decisions with his gut . When he finds a person he feels good about will follow rather than making decisions himself. When he met Vladimir Putin – the man who is destroying democracy in Russia, Putin showed him his crucifix. Bush said ""I was able to get a sense of his soul, a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country," Bush declared after their 2001 visit.
Bush43 meets with a novelist instead of scientist(s) on Global warming – Michael Crichton writes novels which claim Global Warming is a hoax. Bush43 loves this like reagan loved Star Wars. The White house hires an EXXON employee to add qualifiers to scientific reports on global warming. The scientific consensus on Global Warming is VERY strong. Latest papers argue that Hurricane Katrina's strength was a result of warming. In referreed papers (where data is checked by other scientists) 928 papers between 1993 & 2003 – none disagree with the consensus position Papers have vanishingly small differences – all the data, all the serious models, all the trends agree. Bush43 & Congressional Republicans get lotsa $$$ from energy companies and call Global Warming "the greatest hoax"
Many of Reagan's & Bush1's advisors – who really were CONSERVATIVE – are writing very angry books – B43 huge deficits, radical plans to reshape the world on the cheap, no respect for culture and tradition ...
Video: wonderfully manipulative with old craggy curmudgeon Democrat LtGov – "I'm gonna f*** you on this bill" "well, if you are, I'm going to get a kiss first" and grabs him and kisses him on the head – "Get offa me" - so now everyone has to laugh..... Whatever the legislature is planning to do next session B43 gets on TV and says we're going to do ______ which happens.
B43 fights to keep the lowest % of kids insured of any state under Clinton's health care "CHIPS" Childrens health. He wants a bit tax cut for energy companies.
Noone in media covers the internal debates – just the press conferences and human interest stuff. B43 big cuts in oil and other taxes, fights education increases, leaves Huge deficits which his successor has to handle – like a trust fund kid's huge bills But the short term politics is great.
N43 has Karl Rove to slime opponents and leak ( 5th time before grand jury today about exposing CIA non-proliferation agent - fired twice by Pappy Bush - first became known by his SUPER-SLASH-AND-BURN Campaign for President of National Young Republicans – makes into a guerilla war sliming opponent. Reagan had an 11th commandment "never speak ill other Republicans"
Hiring Reagan or Bush43 to run a country is Like hiring a doctor who doesn't have much interest in details and techniques of surgery. He just likes to walk around in a Surgeons scrubs with a stethescope & smoke a pipe and look thoughtful & act cool. Bush loves acting and cheerleading (his college activity)
Flew to an aircraft carrier "and pranced around the flight deck in his rented flight suit trying to look like a real warrior" – somebody with the Right Stuff instead of AWOL.
Big "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" SIGN becomes embarrassing when insurgency they hadn't planned for continues to grow. Blamed it on the sailors – that turns out to be a lie. Media plan : do no show casualties or coffins coming back.
The generals on the ground kept saying "We don't have anywhere near enough troops – there's an insurgency! But Rumsfeld is in deep denial – There is no such thing – "not and insurgency" ; just a few dead-enders and alarmists in the press



ECONOMICS Republicans have fought Minimum Wage increase - a reasonable Minimum wage – would slow down massive immigration because USA workers could make a living with manual labor – learn the disciline of work – we'd pay more for lettuce & grapes.
The Duke LaCrosse team might not be able to buy and sell people like the poor student who was doing exhotic dancing to pay her way through North Carolina State University. Has kids, working her way through college trying to improve herself – good luck having any time with the kids with a $5.45. Average income of a family in Durham lower than one-year-tuition for Duke students – many children of inherited privilege In New Orleans during Katrina media says whites "are scavenging for food", blacks are "looting"
In 1999, CEOs made 458 times as much as production and non-supervisory workers. If minimum wage had risen during the 1990s as rapidly as CEO pay, it would have been $24.13 an hour by 1999 instead of $5.15. Less in the realm of fantasy, if wages had at least kept pace with productivity, which rose 46.5 percent from 1973 to 1998, the median wage would have risen to $17.27 an hour, rather than $11.29, giving $12,438 more a year to full-time workers.
The countr- club Gated-community boys & the Christian Coalition – run the country – neither one could do it alone. One likes being able to hire gardeners & child care at even lower than the minimum wage. The other says "that slut got what she deserved."
Pell grants cover half as much of college costs as they used to. Working class students get out of school with big debt and not enough time to study working 30 or 40 hour weeks. American working class has very little family time. Work 2 months longer every year than Europeans who have 6 weeks off, a cabin in the country, time for an evening meal. Working Class Americans Fast Food and not enough time to follow politics.

Christian Coalition of Alabama tax facts
-What does the Bible say about taxes? There is no scriptural mandate that Christians should simply yield to any level of taxation or that we should not protest when tax dollars are used to fund un-godly purposes (example - public funding of abortions, obscene art, etc.).


-Why does the Christian Coalition of Alabama support low taxes? We believe that when an individual works for their income, that money belongs to the individual, not the government. From a biblical perspective, we owe our first fruits to God. When taxes are low, this benefits families. How do bottom 60% of families do under Bush43 or Reagan? Are millions of kids into poverty “bernefits”? Increased abortions?

-What is a "fair" tax system? Many today, seem to define fair in a Marxian sense: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Regardless of the tax system, taxing some individuals at higher rates than others is "unfair" in the strictest sense of the word. The debate often centers on perceived inequity. The basic argument goes: "The more you make the more you should pay." The idea of taxing the rich is gratifying to many, but "rich" is a term rarely defined as well. According to the IRS, individuals making more than about $28,000 are included in the top 50% of taxpayers. Taxing the rich actually means taxing those in middle-income brackets as well. A second flaw in this reasoning is that it results in punishing success. The higher one moves in income the higher their tax burden should be, or so the argument goes.

Imposing greater tax burdens on families takes much needed resources from those who can least afford it. Creating a truly fair tax system is the subject of much discussion, with ideas including a national sales tax (consumption tax), reforming the current IRS code, a flat tax on income
"You cannot reduce the deficit by raising taxes. Increasing taxes only results in more spending, leaving the deficit at the highest level conceivably accepted by the public. Political Rule No. 1 is: Government spends what government receives plus as much more as it can get away with." -- Milton Friedman
1) Tax increases are one of the worst steps that can be taken to make up revenue shortfalls. This specifically includes taxes on capital and businesses
CONCLUSION When politicians pit one group against another, the only winners are those who believe that more power should be concentrated in the federal government. The economic evidence clearly demonstrates that the U.S. economy will produce significant income gains for all Americans as long as appropriate policies are followed.
In the gilded era of the 1920s, the last time the richest 1% of Americans owned over 40% of the wealth, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, "We can have democracy in this country or great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."
We've responded to record-breaking income disparities by enacting a tax cut that will increase the wealth gap. The richest 1% of taxpayers will receive 38% of $1.34 trillion over ten years, while 34 million Americans will receive nothing.
top one percent captured 70 percent of all earnings growth since the mid-1970's. consumer debt hit a record $1.54 trillion in January, 2001.
Most successful airline – Southwest – has the smallest gap between top and bottom workers. The most profitable GM plant is in Europe where health care costs bite least and workers are well provided for and well educated. Highest executive pay : ENRON . Win's Forbes Magazine greatest corporation 3 years in a row. Steal $28Billion from Calif after their Chief Ken Lay tells Bush43 who to pick for head of Federal Energy Commission.
Franklin Roosevelt's views about economic justice were considered so central to his presidency that they are carved in stone on his monument in Washington, D.C.:
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
In the Declaration of Independence the founders replaced " ...Life liberty and property" with the phrase "Life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness". If every child has the capabilities to pursue happiness all else is trivial pursuit.
B43 didn't want debates with serious questions. Pushed for a dual interview on Larry King for folksy schmoozing.
Gore wanted serious talk – 8 times first debate Gore says " most of B43 tax cut to top 5%" "42% to top 1%" - Second debate "you mention fuzzy math all the time – are there any of VP Gore's numbers you want to contest?" no number mentioned
Few voters REMEMBERS facts WHEN QUIZZED BY POLLSTERS. How YOU LOOK AND CARRY YOURSELF MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT YOU SAY. EASIER TO DETECT LIES ON RADIO – WE'RE instinctively CHARMED OR TURNED OFF BY BODY LANGUAGE. CLINTON AND B43 good persona. Gore is stiff and nervous & sighing and rolling his eyes as B43 talks – how could someone say such stupid things? Public reaction "the smart kid is picking on the dumb kid – what a meanie."

IRAQ TIMELINE
Nixon helps create OPEC so the Shah will have $ for huge weapons purchases. Our proxie to keep order in Persian Gulf. Texans love it – low priced oil drives down American oil prices. They love OPEC's ability to make them RICHER. HALIBURTON and others in Military industrial get big pork$$$$ from contracting, & defense industries.
Jimmy Carter delivered this televised speech on April 18, 1977.
Tonight I want to have an unpleasant talk with you about a problem unprecedented in our history. With the exception of preventing war, this is the greatest challenge our country will face during our lifetimes. The energy crisis has not yet overwhelmed us, but it will if we do not act quickly. …………… We must not be selfish or timid if we hope to have a decent world for our children and grandchildren. We simply must balance our demand for energy with our rapidly shrinking resources. By acting now, we can control our future instead of letting the future control us. Many of these proposals will be unpopular. Some will cause you to put up with inconveniences and to make sacrifices. The most important thing about these proposals is that the alternative may be a national catastrophe. Further delay can affect our strength and our power as a nation. Our decision about energy will test the character of the American people and the ability of the President and the Congress to govern. This difficult effort will be the "moral equivalent of war" -- except that we will be uniting our efforts to build and not destroy. ………. Our nation's independence of economic and political action is becoming increasingly constrained. …………. demand increases each year about 5 percent. This means that just to stay even we need the production of a new Texas every year, an Alaskan North Slope every nine months, or a new Saudi Arabia every three years. ………. But we do have a choice about how we will spend the next few years. Each American uses the energy equivalent of 60 barrels of oil per person each year. Ours is the most wasteful nation on earth. We waste more energy than we import. With about the same standard of living, we use twice as much energy per person as do other countries like Germany, Japan and Sweden. ……………….. ……………… .. Our consumption of oil would keep going up every year. …….. while our public transportation system continues to decline. We can delay insulating our houses, and they will continue to lose about 50 percent of their heat in waste. .... We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now…. Intense competition will build up among nations government must take responsibility - make the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and be willing to make sacrifices. effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs ….. energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems -- wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it. ($50 now) ………………….. prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford …….. must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century. .--Cut in half the portion of United States oil which is imported, …..Establish a strategic petroleum reserve of one billion barrels, more than six months' supply. --Use solar energy in more than two and one-half million houses ……. give our children and grandchildren a world richer in possibilities than we've had. They are the ones we must provide for now. They are the ones who will suffer most if we don't act…………….The citizens who insist on driving large, unnecessarily powerful cars must expect to pay more for that luxury.
Carter puts US on a Glide path for no Persian Gulf Oil
Reagan "sunrise in America" Free lunch – SUV's exempt from CAFE gas-milage standards. Prices
The whole world knew Saddam was gassing the Kurds that allied themselves with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, including Iraq's ally, the United States. Not only did the Reagan administration turn a blind eye to Saddam's murders, but Reagan also blocked Congress from punishing Iraq with sanctions. "The U.S.-Iraqi relationship is . . . important to our long-term political and economic objectives," wrote Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. Murphy in September 1988 as he addressed the chemical weapons question. "We believe that economic sanctions will be useless or counterproductive to influence the Iraqis.
Iraq I 1990 caused by miscalculations and mistakes – not purposeful lies. US helps arm Iraq – they are "enemy of our enemy" – Iran. Reagan & Bush41 Rumsfeld etc helps with poison gas of Iranians, send biological weapons material - refuse to criticize gassing – oppose congress attempt to sanction Sadaam – Believe Sadaam will only grab a little of Kuwait – "We have no defense treaty with Kuwait" – Kuwait has slant wells & overproduce OPEC quota to drive price down and hurt Iraq (deep in debt from fighting Iran)-

IRAQ I 1990
When Pappy Bush went to a meeting of world big-wigs at the Aspen Institute a few days after Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 he had said there would be no Military response. At Aspen however he talked to Maggie Thatcher, the conservative Prime Minister of England. She told the story of how her Falklands warwas respoonsible for her political survival "I was about to be defeated (1982) when the Falklands conflict happened. I stayed in office for 8 years after that".
Her popularity was at a low ebb – but a splendid quick little punitive expedition against the Argentine colonels had turned out triumphantly. She had gained the political capital that let her kill many social programs. She privatized Social Security & starved universal health care – all with the political capital garnered from Falklands.
In 1998 Bush43 told the family biographer: Dick Cheney sez an easy war against Iraq would have similar results to Maggies. It would be a glorious success – Bush would get himself "political capital," perhaps so he could privatize Social Security and screw universal health care, same as Maggie. Bush said that was his plan. He also told the biographer that he planned to never admit mistakes. It was better to keep to a simple story. Truth value is irrelevant politically. (remember George Wallace and ther judge he said backed down? Wallace just kept saying the judge backed down even though Wallace had - and it worked. If you say something sincerely over and over people will believe it if the story mekes them feel good or if it gives them a villain they can feel righteous indignation about... )

Bush41 took Maggie's advice In Iraq. "This will not stand"
But: in everything from war to health care the devil is in the details.
Bush41 warred in a careful "reality based" way.
He listened to Powell and Scocroft – who counseled caution.
He waited till after the election so the debate would be honest, not political posturing.
Colin Powell and many Democrats were for slightly more patience. Some for sanctions for a while. but almost everyone agreed that Sadaam would be made to withdraw.
I HAVE AN INTELLECTUAL AFFINITY TO PEOPLE WHO SERVED ON THE GROUND IN VIETNAM.
THEY DO NOT BULLSHIT ABOUT WAR.
SOLDIERS Zini, Shinseki, Powell, Armitage, Senators Hegel & Kerry
(McCain is airforce, Rummy is peacetime airforce, anyone from the airforce is dumb about blood
Iraq I (Desert Storm) was carefully planned – international support assiduously mustered –
Domestic debate careful and civil – few American lives lost –
Expenses paid on a cost-plus basis – by Saudis and others.
Sadaam was ejected from Kuwait,
BUT _ had anyone planned the after-war? OOPS! D'ooooh!
but the end of the war was a bit of a mess. Really ugly pictures of the "Road of Death" turned the stomach of Pappy, Powell and Scocroft – who had actually been in wars. We encouraged a revolt against Sadaam – but only enforced a no-fly-zone for the Kurds. Iraqi Shiites might be too close to the Mullahs in Iran – the reason we were arming Sadaam in the first place.

Jay Garner became our man in Kurdistan after we established the no-fly-zone.. He didn't micromanage make the locals do it themselves. He just refereed dispute resolution. No shelling cities, no bombing.
He held elections as soon as possible.
We gave the Kurds oil $ and let them do politics.
They cut infant mortality in half and built schools and hospitals and had a little free press –
although the two factions were fighting more than occasionally.
Gore 1993 – pushed for BTU (dirty energy) tax to cut deficit and encourage alternative energy and avoid pork.
Gore also pushed the Kyoto accords to limit CO2 (from oil and coal burning) and slow global warming
Clinton tried to get Bin Laden with cruise missiles after embassy bombings in 1998 . He just missed by 2 hours. Republicans screamed "wag the dog" and publicly claimed Clinton was doing this for political reasons in the middle of their sex scandals.
Republicans need an ENEMY! Too confusing to have SEX & TERRORISM at once.
The case for global hegemony through unilateral action was first presented in 1992 Pentagon paper Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney - rapidly suppressed by the Bush I administration. Wolfowitz opposed President Bush's 1991 decision not to press on to Baghdad and get rid of Saddam Hussein forever. In 1996 a document prepared by Richard Perle, Douglas Feith (Gen Franks calls "stupidest $#%** in history") , and half a dozen others for Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli hard-liner, called for, among other things, a "focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq." The hard-liners were admirers of the hard-assed tactics of the Israelis.
Republicans need enemies Fukuyama says of Bill Kristol and his circle at The Weekly Standard that during the 1990s "There was actually a deliberate search for an enemy because they felt that the Republican Party didn't do as well" when foreign policy wasn't on the issue agenda. The obvious candidates were either China or something relating to Islamic fundamentalism and, as Fukuyama notes, what they came up with was China. Then 9/11 changed things around, at least for a few years. I think this is very telling, and reveals a great deal about the mentality that's been guiding America's foreign policy during the Bush years.
Having a scary enemy – like Arabs they subsidize and piss off - was not bad for their political influence – which needs enemies. It also wasn't bad for their investments in the Carlyle Group. Which invests in Aerospace, Defense & energy companies. Mostly owned by private individuals including Bush family, Bin Laden family former CIA & Defense department officials, who might possibly have inside information about government policy in many of those industries. One of the porky benefits of privatization. The Group's aerospace and defense investments have been a source of criticism because of the Group's alleged connections to the Middle East.
Unseating Sadaam in Iraq was very popular with Religions Right - Pat Robertson and Falwell - Jews reclaiming Jerusalem is important for the End Times. The Palestinians should just forget about all the land Israel has expropriated. In 1998 Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and Perle were among the eighteen signers of an open letter to President Clinton arguing that regime change in Iraq "needs to become the aim of American foreign policy."

CRONY-CORRUPTION
(
the Bush dynasty differs from other American families that have mixed wealth with political prominence. While the Kennedys and the Rockefellers may have a sense of entitlement, they also display a sense of noblesse oblige—what one might call an urge to repay, with charitable contributions and public service, their good fortune. The Bushes don't have that problem; there are no philanthropists or reformers in the clan. They seek public office but, if anything, they seem to feel that the public is there to serve them $$$.
Let's put W. to one side for a moment, and look at how his brothers used their political connections to enrich themselves. Here are a few highlights:
• Before he was elected governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, in partnership with a Cuban refugee whom Phillips suggests had CIA connections, bought an office building with $4.6 million borrowed from a savings and loan. When the S&L went bankrupt, the loan was taken over by the federal Resolution Trust Corporation, which for some reason allowed the partners to settle their debt for only $500,000. In another deal, Jeb was paid handsomely by a company selling pumps to Nigeria that somehow received large-scale financing from the US Export-Import Bank.
• Neil Bush sat on the board of another S&L, Silverado, which made $200 million in loans—subsequently defaulted—to an oil company that in turn gave Neil large loans with no obligation to repay. In recent divorce proceedings it has emerged that a firm backed by Chinese businessmen, including the son of former Chinese president Jiang Zemin, paid Neil large sums in return for vaguely defined services.
• After the first Gulf War Marvin Bush, who went to Kuwait seeking business in 1993, served on the boards of several companies controlled by the Kuwait-American Company. A member of Kuwait's royal family is one of Kuwait-American's major shareholders, and it seems reasonable to say that in effect Marvin works for the al-Sabahs.
And then there's the story of how George W. himself became rich. Many people now know the tale—the failed companies that somehow got bought out at premium prices, the insider stock sale that somehow was never properly investigated, the government generosity that made the Texas Rangers such a good deal for the businessmen who picked W. to be their public face. Several of these deals, like those of brother Marvin, had Middle East connections. Bush's first venture, Arbusto, may have involved bin Laden family money. The story of George W.'s stake in Harken Energy—which he sold two months before it announced large losses—involved a puzzling surprise deal with the government of Bahrain.
Here's how Phillips summarizes the picture:
All in all, if presidential family connections were theme parks, Bush World would be a sight to behold. Mideast banks tied to the CIA would crowd alongside Florida S&Ls that once laundered money for the Nicaraguan contras. Dozens of oil wells would run eternally without finding oil, thanks to periodic cash deposits by old men wearing Reagan-Bush buttons and smoking twenty-dollar cigars. Visitors to "Prescott Bush's Tokyo" could try to make an investment deal without falling into the clutches of the yakuza....
But aside from casting some light on the President's character, why does this shady family history matter? Phillips makes a convincing case that Bush family crony capitalism is closely intertwined with Bush administration policy.
In part, it's a matter of values, W.'s "instinctive policy fealty" to the activities that made his family rich. Although he ran in 2000 as a moderate, his policies, from the tax cuts to the scrapping of the Kyoto Protocol, have been relentlessly in favor of both the rich and the energy industry. And according to Suskind's The Price of Loyalty, W. appears to have a visceral dislike for corporate reform. More ominous, perhaps, is Phillips's contention that family history has shaped Bush foreign policy. It's a great irony that George W. Bush, beloved by red-blooded, red-state Americans for his down-home manner, comes from a family with deep political and business connections to the Middle East. As someone once pointed out, it's a lot easier to document links between the bin Laden family and the Bushes than it is to document links between the bin Ladens and Saddam Hussein....... George H.W. Bush's post-presidential employment by the Carlyle Group, the private global investment firm whose Saudi investors included members of the bin Laden family.
BUSH43 tax policy has contributed to surging economic inequality, which has led to a broad-based "dynastization of America." To put the matter simply, the economic elite has become far more elite than it was a generation ago. Since the late 1970s, the top 1 percent of the population has more than doubled its share of national income, and the top 0.01 percent has increased its share by a factor of six. Today there is, to an extent not seen since the 1920s, a substantial class of people wealthy enough to form their own dynasties. And in a variety of ways, from political contributions to more subtle shaping of culture, for example by promoting aristocratic values, this class has created an environment favorable for dynastic ambitions.
Second is the, um, unholy alliance between the dynastic class and the religious right. I found Phillips's explanation of how Bush uses religiously charged language to signal his alliance with fundamentalists revelatory
Bush's day-to-day language was a veritable biblical message center. Besides the ever-present references to "evil" and "evil ones," chief White House speechwriter Michael Gerson, a onetime college theology major, filled George W. Bush's delivery system with phrases that, while inoffensive to secular voters, directed more specific religious messages to the faithful....
Biblical scholar Bruce Lincoln's line-by-line analysis of Bush's October 7, 2001, address to the nation announcing the US attack on Afghanistan identified a half dozen veiled borrowings from the Book of Revelation, Isaiah, Job, Matthew, and Jeremiah. He concluded that for those with ears to hear a biblical subtext, "by the [speech's] end America's adversaries have been redefined as enemies of God and current events have been constituted as confirmation of scripture."

Clinton – arms sale embargo on Saudi Arabia May 1993 Aspin announced "the end of the Star Wars era,"
Clinton's first major defense initiative would finance more training and equipment maintenance, grant new cost-of-living pay increases, upgrade military housing and expand child-care services.
Creates a Peacekeeping Institute to handle after-war stabilization. Killed by B43 as soon as he is in office.
Transition 2001 Clinton tells Bush43 "Bin Laden should be your focus". – Bush sez no - Iraq ON TOP
BUSH43 - Has a great GUT reaction instinct for people and for how things will play politically
Paul O'Neill B43 Treasury secy and DeLulio first head of Faith based initiatives both say: "they never discuss policy, just the political implications of what they do" "Have no interest in actually getting benefits to poor people" "Mayberry Machiavellis"
B43 has been involved in campaigns not governing. As when a family friend helps him buy Baseball team he's the front man – the Public Relations face.
Does not want to talk about the nuances and details of public policy. Cuts off anyone who tried to talk about details – "put down that report - tell me what the most important thing I have to know to make this decision" Death penalty briefs – Gonzales leaves out mitigating factors – extremely cursory
COMPLEXITY Bush43 HATES complexity - Complains that advisors are "nuancing him to death" - Feels that he ios a good judge of people – more likely to judge by his gut reaction to a person than by debate and thought I don't argue with myself – VERY UNLIKELY TO reconsider a decision or learn from a bad decision Decisiveness – never a doubt – never ponders possible error - politically wonderful – dubious for good policy – at the mercy of advisors for details
B43 needs love and loyalty– didn't get from family. Harriet Meyers – his embarrassing Supreme court nominee – an undistinguished corporate lawyer and white-house-assistant council-to -the-president who writes fawning cards to the President telling him how inspiring he is – that he's "the most intelligent man I've ever met" He was disrespected in his family – talks about how his mother "Old Refigerator Hands" never cooked for him. Jeb is the fair-haired-boy disciplined hard working studious. B43 is the jokester -black sheep. The world didn't appreciate me – and they were wrong – God has decided I should be president. Rumors : may nuke Iran's nuclear program "because no president after me would have the courage to" ...
9/9 and 9/10 2001 Democrat Congress tries to move $ from star wars and anti-drug programs to war on terror defense spending and intelligence. Bush threatened a veto

Bush went on vacation instead of sounding an alarm when he read "Bin Laden determined to attack US." The CIA and terrorism chief were "running around with their hair on fire." Condi Rice refused to have a meeting Richard Clark (anti-teor-chief) was desperate for. Bush would have to make a decision. Bush demands short position papers with a simple consensus. The meeting in summer 2001 would have seen strong disagreements between Clark strongly advocating a Bin Laden focus against Cheney and Wolfowitz focused on Iraq.


9 / 11 Bush looks and acts like a deer in headlights for 10 minutes (Cynthia McKinney – sez he knew it was coming. If you knew it was coming would you look like a deer in the headlights after going awol once already?)

Bush43 squands chance (Gore would have siezed) to do something about what he has correctly characterised as America's "addiction" to oil. After the attacks of September 11 2001, the president had a unique opportunity to create a bipartisan and public consensus behind increased energy efficiency and reduced energy dependency, especially on oil imported from politically unreliable parts of the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. He did not take it. Instead he said "GO SHOPPING" The administration took four years to produce an energy bill that in no way addresses the fact that per capita energy use in the US is far higher than in any of its competitors - in transport, for example, three times that of Japan.
This level of energy intensity has little to do with high rates of economic growth and a great deal to do with driving habits. More fuel-efficient engines do not translate into more miles per gallon if cars keep getting heavier and faster, and the culture and the economic incentives ensure that the Hummer trumps the Hybrid.
The solution – drill in Alaska. Make sure the grand-children have no oil left – to go with their huge mortgage.


Afghanistan - Neocons wanted to attack Iraq first – only talked into Afghhanistan by Powell and Blair.
US has huge international sympathy.
Lack of attention let Bin Laden escape Tore Bora
Resources were already moving to Iraq.
United Nations and Europeans brought in to do most of the policing and organize a government by traditional Loya Jurga – leave warlords in place. . 2.5 million Afghanis return home.
Too little help - but still much improved .
Powell – is in administration because VERY POPULAR most Americans. Shut out of Iraq debate & planning because he's not a "true believer." Powell gave his unvarnished opinion of draft-dodging chicken-hawks and National Guard Draft-dodgers like Cheney and Bush43 in his biography. Powell expressed contempt for "slide-rule prodigies" "High-tech warriors back in the Pentagon" Fight between Vietnam veterans of the war on the ground and Star wars true believers & Air Force
Future of Iraq Group has State Department experts, academics , many exiles from all Iraaqi groups. Detailed Planning for after-war Discarded completely.
Cheney :anyone connected to Powell must be excluced. Cheney is the one with a gut-connection to B43.
Cheney & Wolfowitz have visions of the quick and easy "political capital" "cakewalk" "oil will pay for reconstruction" "we'll be greeted as liberators with flowers like Liberating France in WWII. Their ignorance of Iraq is impermeable to logic experience and knowledge of Iraq "We don't study reality .... we change it" Ahmad Chibali is feeding their delusions with bd information on WMD and stories / visions of how he can take over and make eveything work – just put me in charge and you can leave – pln to be down to 30,000 troops

WAR DEBATE Vietnam Vets – army and Marines VS Neocon True Believers
Opposite of Pappy Bush who had serious policy debate – after election – B43 foreign policy decided by politics. Iraq timed for midterm election
Summer 2002 – election diskette from Rove says run against Democrats by calling them "soft on Iraq war" rather than look for national unity. It works.
Aug 2002 – Andy Card White House Chief of staff – "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August"
Elections campaign:– slime Max Cleland a veteran who lost 3 limbs in Vietnam because he objects to one anti-union provision in the Homeland Security bill. Commercials morph him into Osama. Bush43 had been resisting Homeland Security bill a few months before.
Slime Scott Ritter – head of weapons inspection team – who says there are no WMD. In the early 1990's Sadaam was denying WMD. When inspectors started finding stuff Sadaam didn't want to admit he'd been lying. Destroyed WMD secretly without calling press or making films. Had no receipts or proof. . Bush43 demands proof of a negative – prove you have no WMD
Powell speaks to United Nations before war. Loyal "good soldier" passing on BS gathered by OFFICE OF SPECIAL PLANS Feith and Cheney. Nothing true.

Three weeks before the war, Shinseki head of Joint Chiefs of Staff (lost part of his foot in Vietnam)testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee. Shinseki finally said, based on his own past experience, that he thought it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. Rummy (Air Force) wants only 80,000. Vietnam veterans have seen the results – a desrtoyed army – when civilians put army in a situation with not enough troops & no way to win & no exit strategy. Many more casualties when not enough troops to take control and secure order. Once you led disorder erupt you're screwed. Powell Doctrine or Scocroft Doctrine. Larry Lindsey – Treasury Secretary - told the truth on war cost - $200 Billion - was fired. Joe Wilson told the truth about Uranium from Niger and gets slimed and his wife (CIA agent) exposed. Oak Ridge was ignored on aluminum tubes (ubsuitable for uranium enrichment) .
Several days later, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense, appeared before a different committee. [He] went out of his way essentially to slap Shinseki in the face, to say there had been some recent estimates that had been "wildly off the mark." Then he went on to say that it was almost impossible to imagine that it would be harder, and take more troops, to occupy Iraq than it had taken to conquer them; whereas that point, that it would be harder to occupy than conquer, was in fact the central theme the Army had been advancing before the war.
UN inspections were going well at this point – except from the Neocon's Point of view. The inspections weren't finding WMD's. The unanimous Security Council and the US Senate had authorized the threat of force to get inspections. Cheney and Rumsfeld often claimed they knew exactly where the weapons were. In hearings Senator Levin asked George Tenet (head of CIA) "are you telling the UN where the WMD are?" Tenet (head CIA) said they were,. But after the war started, just before his resignation, sent a letter saying "oops" - they hadn't given the UN inspectors any locations. Another accident. There were no WMD.
Cheney started his own alternative intelligence organization. They used sources like a man the Germans called "Curveball" because they thought he was mentally unstable.
Administration officials arguing for immediate war like Condi Rice used the theat that "the smokuing gun may be a mushroom cloud". Memo mysteriously appeared purporting to be about uranium shipped from Niger to Iraq. Everyone except Cheney and his independent intelligence unit (Feith) thought it was a forgery. Muhammed Al Baradai head of IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) said it was a crude forgery and was attacked by Cheney. Even Tenet made the Neo-cons remove uranium references from a speech. Feith reinserted it into a State of the Union speech. The speech said that the British had the letter and described it as credible. They appologized for this lie later – said it was "an accident".
The Neocons did a similar job on Sadaam's aluminum tubes: they claimed were for Uranium enrichment. Everyone at Oak Ridge said this was crazy. The tube walls were too thick and they were anodized which doesn't work. Cheney found 2 young inexperienced technically naiive Defense Intelligence Agancy guys to say they were great for enrichment. They gave them (and Tenet) medals.
The CIA – responding to Cheney's push to find Uranium links - sent Pappy Bush's favorite ambassador (ambassador to Iraq during Iraq War I) Joe Wilson to Niger. Wilson knew Niger well having been ambassador there. . Wilson reported (like everyone else) that the uranium story was not credible, bogus. When Wilson wrote an op-ed in the New York Times saying that the Administration knew the Uranium stories were bogus someone leaked his wife's name (a secret CIA agent working on Proliferation) to reporters. Turns out to be Rove (and Scooter Libby - on trial soon but will delay and be pardoned) and Robert Novak again. Remember Pappy Bush fired Rove for leaking to Novak twice years ago.
Bush43 said anyone who revealed classified info would be fired and he wanted to know if anyone did. The White House now says Bush himself secretly declassified the documents – and Cheney ordered the selective-deceptive-secret-partial-leaks. Oops.
WAR – Very QUICK – BYPASS RESISTANCE – DO NOT GUARD WEAPONS CACHES – DO NOT KEEP ORDER Army complains – is ignored.
REPUBLICAN THEORY OF Abu Ghraib : "BAD APPLES AT BOTTOM OF BARREL" Only investigate towards bottom of Chain of Command
WEAPONS CACHES : Rudy Giulani "Bad apples" soldiers on the ground failed to guard the weapons dumps NOT A FAILURE OF PLANNING!!!
AFTER WAR – Jay Garner (the guy who made Kurdistan work in the 1990's) – DEMOCRACY NOW! let them vote soon – FIRED after a few weeks – not a true-believer.
Paul Bremmer – true believer - rule from the top – hand-pick a few favorite Iraqis. Flat taxes. Against Islam's third Pillar. CHRISTIAN COALITION TAX POLICY FOR A MUSLIM COUNTRY. Disband the Iraqi Army – send them home – good luck – you're unemployed. Everyone except the Neocon true-believers argues vigorously against this. DEEP DE-BAATHIFICATION. Remove all sources of organization. No-one connected to State Department or non-true-believers can work in reconstruction.
Coalition strength
Dick Cheney said: "You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in '91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we've got 30 today. We've got troops beside us." Fred Kaplan supplies the actual numbers, from official U.S. government sources: Gulf war: 800,000 non-U.S. troops. Iraq war: 24,000 non-U.S. troops. So, according to the Vice President, a military force of 800,000 is not "far stronger" than a military force of 24,000.'...

Bush planned to put Chalabi in charge of Iraq, but Chalabi had no grass roots. He was the one who had the bright idea to throw thousands of ex-Baathists into unemployment (which encouraged them to join the guerrilla resistance). It later came out that some of the Neoconservatives in the Pentagon had let it slip to him that the US had broken the Iranian diplomatic codes. Chalabi is chummy with Tehran and let his friends among the Ayatollahs know this tidbit. As a result, the US can no longer closely track the Iranian nuclear program.
The Deep-Baathification – dismissing the army units which had answered our call to "melt away" during the war – instead of being sent to guard the borders were told "you're unemployed" Take your weapons home and watch your family starve.


LACK OF LEADERSHIP Without someone at the top, like a President, who could make decisions between competing plans, often parts of the administration were pursuing policies that were at odds with each other parts.
One of many examples was in December 2003 when James Baker set off to negotiate Iraqi debt forgiveness with our estranged allies. Mr. Baker's mission was part of an effort by veterans of the first Bush administration to extricate George W. Bush from the hard-liners' clutches. If the mission were to collapse for any reason – like maybe acrimony over contracts for oil and reconstruction - that's a good thing from the hard-liners' point of view.
So at that very moment Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defense released a "Determination and Findings" on reconstruction contracts that not only excludes those allies from bidding, but does so with highly offensive language, deliberately sabotaging reconciliation.
The Neocons were still in denial at this point in public – denying publicly that there was any insurgency while the Army said the opposite. They still thought there would be lots of gravy and glory.
ZARQAWI! Bush administration deliberately avoided striking Abu Musab al-Zarqawi before the war because doing so would undermine their deeply dishonest to tie Sadaam to terrorists. B43 later claimed they never said that. He admitted there was no connection. Somehow 80% of American voters heard and believed there was a connection – especially FOX viewers.
Sometimes, what you don't say is the most important part. Take Tony Snow's remarks to Carl Levin this week on Fox News Sunday: "You mentioned the link with al Qaeda. Of course that was Ansar al-Islam which did have a base in northern Iraq." As Senator Levin went on to point out, however, the portion of northern Iraq where Ansar had its base was in the Kurdish region outside the control of Saddam Hussein, thus making its existence perfectly irrelevant to the case for war.
Oftentimes, however, the news-watching public doesn't have a Democratic Senator on hand to keep them straight in the face of conservative lies and they have to rely on the press to keep them informed. Just the previous Sunday, Don Rumsfeld brought up Ansar's prewar activities in Iraq on three different Sunday shows without even a whiff of contradiction or clarification passing through the lips of Snow, George Will, George Stephanopoulos, or Tim Russert.
This particular bit of dishonesty began its life in the more sophisticated hands of Colin Powell, where it was more a piece of misdirection than outright deception. In his well-received presentation to the U.N. Security Council laying out the case for war, Powell noted the existence of Ansar al-Islam and did state that it operated "in northern Kurdish areas outside Saddam Hussein controlled Iraq," but alleged that its head, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had once received medical treatment in Baghdad. Based on this slender thread of a link, Powell dedicated about 1,000 words to detailing the threat posed by Zarqawi and his group.
If Ansar's activities really did pose a significant threat to the United States, then we should have attacked them at the earliest possible opportunity, but it seems that the administration found them to be more useful alive, as a bogus argument in favor of war, than dead.
Mention of Ansar al-Islam's prewar existence in Iraq without the qualification that it operated outside of Saddam's control surfaced on Fox News Sunday from the mouth of Paul Bremer on August 24 and October 26 and from Condoleezza Rice on September 7. August 24 also saw Bremer shopping the non-existent link on This Week with George Stephanopoulos and making an ambiguous reference to "refiltration" on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. That same day on Meet the Press, General Richard Myers remarked that "there was this group of Ansar al-Islam up in northeast Iraq that was working on poisons that had actually, in fact, infiltrated into Europe and some of those plots thwarted by the British and the French and others." In none of these instances did the interviewer see fit to note the fact that the group was operating outside the control of the Hussein regime or to question the administration's motives for presenting the facts in such an incomplete or misleading manner.
On CBS, where administration officials never seem to have told the lie, network correspondents still joined their brethren at other media outlets in doing the White House's dirty work for it, with reports both before and after the period of "major combat operations" noting without qualification that Ansar had a base "in Iraq" or was linked by Powell to the Iraqi government.
Even higher up the administration food chain, Dick Cheney told Tim Russert on September 14 that "we also knew al Qaeda was there, and Ansar al-Islam, up in northeastern Iraq" in the course of the same interview where he made the infamous claim that "we don't know" whether or not Iraq was involved in 9/11. Russert couldn't be bothered to follow up on either point.
The president, famously, disavowed those remarks, but in the course of disavowing them yet again implied the existence of a significant Iraq-al Qaeda link, saying of Zarqawi "he's a man who is still running loose, involved with the poisons network, involved with Ansar al-Islam. There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties."
But he didn't. Nevertheless, over a period of months, the Bush administration has engaged in a sustained effort to convince the American people that Zarqawi's presence in Kurdistan was a justification for war. Democrats seeking to inquire into the administration's misuse of prewar intelligence stand accused of illegitimately "politicizing" the Senate, while top administration officials can go on television and misrepresent the facts without challenge. Matthew Yglesias is a writing fellow at The American Prospect.
Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 2:08 PM PT
Why didn't the Bush administration kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when it had the chance?
That it had opportunities to take out the Jordanian-born jihadist has been clear since Secretary of State Colin Powell devoted a long section of his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. In those remarks, which were given to underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, Powell dwelt at length on the terrorist camp in Khurmal, in the pre-invasion Kurdish enclave. It was at that camp that Zarqawi, other jihadists who had fled Afghanistan, and Kurdish radicals were training and producing the poison ricin and cyanide.
Neither the Khurmal camp nor the surrounding area were under Saddam's control, but Powell provided much detail purporting to show Zarqawi's ties to the Baghdad regime. His arguments have since been largely discredited by the intelligence community. Many of us who have worked in counterterrorism wondered at the time about Powell's claims. If we knew where the camp of a leading jihadist was and knew that his followers were working on unconventional weapons, why weren't we bombing it or sending in special operations forces—especially since this was a relatively "permissive" environment?
In recent months, the mystery of the administration's inaction has only grown. News reports—including, most recently, one in the Wall Street Journal this week—make it clear that military leaders and the CIA felt Zarqawi was a threat that could and should be removed. On at least three occasions between mid-2002 and the invasion of Iraq, the Pentagon presented plans to the White House to destroy the Khurmal camp. Each time the White House declined to act or did not respond at all. The Pentagon drew up detailed plans in June 2002, giving the administration a series of options for a military strike on the camp Mr. Zarqawi was running then in remote northeastern Iraq, according to generals who were involved directly in planning the attack and several former White House staffers. They said the camp, near the town of Khurmal, was known to contain Mr. Zarqawi and his supporters as well as al Qaeda fighters, all of whom had fled from Afghanistan. Intelligence indicated the camp was training recruits and making poisons for attacks against the West.
Senior Pentagon officials who were involved in planning the attack said that even by spring 2002 Mr. Zarqawi had been identified as a significant terrorist target, based in part on intelligence that the camp he earlier ran in Afghanistan had been attempting to make chemical weapons, and because he was known as the head of a group that was plotting, and training for, attacks against the West. He already was identified as the ringleader in several failed terrorist plots against Israeli and European targets. In addition, by late 2002, while the White House still was deliberating over attacking the camp, Mr. Zarqawi was known to have been behind the October 2002 assassination of a senior American diplomat in Amman, Jordan.
But the raid on Mr. Zarqawi didn't take place. Months passed with no approval of the plan from the White House, until word came down just weeks before the March 19, 2003, start of the Iraq war that Mr. Bush had rejected any strike on the camp until after an official outbreak of hostilities with Iraq. Ultimately, the camp was hit just after the invasion of Iraq began.
The Journal can't say for sure why Bush made this call, though even if he made it for less-dishonorable reasons than those suggested above it's still incredibly damning. Even well-intentioned mistakes are hard to forgive when they lead to the deaths of hundreds of people and the undermining of our entire strategic project in the Middle East. But the Journal does report on the official explanation for why the camp wasn't hit: The White House and the Pentagon say they couldn't be sure Zarqawi was there. They also cite a number of former defense and intelligence officials who were working for the government at the time -- including General Tommy Franks -- as saying that the White House line isn't true.
that refusal was at least an enormous blunder – maybe worse. This week Zarqawi claimed responsibility for executing 49 Iraqi army recruits. Since shortly after Saddam was toppled, Zarqawi's Tawhid wal Jihad group has been astonishingly effective at undermining the U.S. occupation. These operatives have killed wholesale, with a long string of car and truck bombs to their credit, and they have killed retail, with the videotaped executions of hostages, which have become must-see TV in the Muslim world and are driving contractors and NGOs out of the country. There is no reliable tally of Zarqawi's victims, but it would not be surprising if it was over 1,000. The issue of why no attempt to get him was made has become even more pungent since President Bush began pointing to Zarqawi in response to Sen. John Kerry's contention that Iraq was a diversion from the war on terror.
What seems evident is that the administration viewed Zarqawi as a lower-tier concern, despite his well-known history of running an Afghan terrorist training camp and conducting terrorist operations in Europe. The White House was unwilling to divert any effort from the buildup for war in Iraq to this kind of threat.
The idea that states are the real issue and terrorists and their organizations are of secondary concern has been present throughout the Bush presidency. Although the 9/11 commission wrote its report in a spare, non-judgmental tone to preserve bipartisan unity, its description of the long, aimless road the administration took to the first meeting of its national security Cabinet on the issue of al-Qaida on Sept. 4, 2001, speaks volumes. By contrast, the first "principals" meeting on the issue of regime change in Iraq took place in January 2001, shortly after Bush's inauguration.
After 9/11, senior officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz, simply refused to believe the assessment of the intelligence community that Iraq had no hand in the attack and that al-Qaida operated independently of state support. In the Pentagon's conduct of operations in Afghanistan, the overwhelming focus was on unseating the Taliban, the effective state power, while less attention was paid to pursuing al-Qaida, which had just killed nearly 3,000 people on American soil. Thus we had the debacle at Tora Bora, where our subcontractors, the militias of Afghan warlords, allowed Osama Bin Laden to escape.
Similarly, the relentless focus on Saddam Hussein has led to the removal from Afghanistan of key intelligence and special operations assets, including much of the elite commando unit Task Force 5. This, like the case of the pulled punch against Zarqawi, suggests that the Bush team continued to believe that states were the key threats in the post-9/11 world; terrorist groups could easily be swept up after the rogue nations had been dispatched. The much vaunted doctrine of pre-emption was employed against Iraq—a state that was effectively deterred from attacking the United States—while undeterrable terrorists were left to their own devices. It seems never to have occurred to President Bush and his advisers that in a globalized world, where borders are porous and technologies of massive destructiveness are available, hidden networks can be far more dangerous than a state, which can be threatened and contained. Yet that surely has been the lesson of the last three years. It is an added irony that the administration's inability to fully assimilate the threat from "non-state actors" is leading, thanks in part to Zarqawi, to the failure of its effort to reinvent Iraq as a stable democracy in the Middle East. Daniel Benjamin, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, was director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff. He is the co-author of The Age of Sacred Terror.
(BushDynasty p311)Chr Sci Monitor analyzes prime time press conf in early 2003. A large majority of Americans believe WMD justify war. Bush mentions 9-11 8 times in the same breath as Sadaam. 53% believe Sadaam is personally connected to 9-11.
Rumsfeld had been advocating an invasion of Iraq long before Mr. Bush took office and wanted more damning evidence against Baghdad after 9/11 than the Central Intelligence Agency had. An operation, run by Doug Feith in Cheney's office, tried to persuade the Pentagon's own espionage unit, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to change its conclusion that there was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When the Defense Intelligence Agency rebuffed this blatant interference, Mr. Feith's team wrote its own report. It took long-discredited raw intelligence and resurrected it to create the impression that there was new information supporting Mr. Feith's preordained conclusions. It misrepresented the C.I.A.'s reports and presented fifth-hand reports as authoritative, all to depict Iraq as an ally of Al Qaeda. (from the fellow the Germans called curveball) Bipartisan reports from the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the intelligence community had been right and Mr. Feith wrong: there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and no link at all between Mr. Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. We don't know exactly how much of that the White House knew because Mr. Feith tried to confuse things. He eliminated points that the C.I.A. disputed when he showed the intelligence agency his report, and he put them back in when he sent it to the White House. The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has reported on the C.I.A.'s actions before the war, has delayed a review of the administration's behavior until after the election. We also will not see the C.I.A.'s own report because Mr. Bush's new intelligence chief, Porter Goss, has rebuffed a bipartisan request from Congress to release it.

The Iraq Reconstruction FiascoPublished: August 9, 2004 NYTimes
Things have gone so obviously wrong with America's approach to rebuilding Iraq that even the Bush administration is now willing to listen to some informed advice. Before the invasion, the White House and Pentagon contemptuously ignored post-invasion planning memos drafted by State Department experts knowledgeable about Iraq, the Arab world and the broader problems of nation-building.

Now some of those same State Department experts are quietly being called back to try to repair the damage. Their re-emergence is welcome, but late in the game. Winning back the good will and trust of ordinary Iraqis will be, at best, an uphill fight.
Almost a year after Congress approved an American contribution of more than $18 billion to rebuild Iraq, very little of this money has been spent. Very little has actually been built in Iraq, and most of what has been done has been paid for out of Iraq's own revenues. This is more than an embarrassing case of dysfunctional aid management and shifty accounting. It helps explain why so many Iraqis have come to resent the American occupation even though it removed a hated dictator and ended 13 years of punishing economic sanctions. Even people who initially welcomed the invasion have had a hard time understanding or accepting why, 16 months after American troops took Baghdad, electricity and clean water are only intermittently available and nearly half of employable Iraqis are without work.
Of the $18.4 billion Congress approved last fall, only about $600 million has actually been paid out. Billions more have been designated for giant projects still in the planning stage. Part of the blame rests with the Pentagon's planning failures and the occupation authority's reluctance to consult qualified Iraqis. Instead, the administration brought in American defense contractors who had little clue about what was most urgently needed or how to handle the unfamiliar and highly insecure climate.
Occupation officials also felt free to tap into Iraqi revenues, which are subject to far less oversight and looser controls than Congressionally appropriated funds. Late last year, for example, the Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown & Root was awarded a no-bid contract out of Iraqi revenues. At the time, Congress might have balked at further dealings with a company facing questions about the inflated prices it charged for importing gasoline into Iraq and about a no-bid contract awarded by the Army Corps of Engineers just before the invasion. Last week, The Washington Post reported that almost $2 billion in Iraqi revenues had been awarded to American companies.
State Department experts now suggest a switch to smaller-scale projects that can produce visible results more quickly. They are also talking about deeper Iraqi involvement in the planning and carrying out of American-financed reconstruction projects. Greater Iraqi involvement would spread public awareness of these projects, provide new jobs for Iraqis and drastically reduce costs. Iraqi construction labor costs about one-tenth of what is typically paid to foreign contractors. Closer consultation with the Baghdad ministries and local councils would also add some plausibility to Washington's claims that Iraqis now exercise sovereignty in their own country. Despite all it has gone through, Iraq remains one of the Arab world's most advanced societies, with considerable professional expertise that should be put to better use.
All of this should have been done a year ago. It still needs to be done now. Iraq's reconstruction needs have only become more urgent and most of that huge appropriation is still unspent.
Army Historian Cites Lack of Postwar Plan
Major Calls Effort in Iraq 'Mediocre'
By Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 25, 2004; Page A01
The U.S. military invaded Iraq without a formal plan for occupying and stabilizing the country and this high-level failure continues to undercut what has been a "mediocre" Army effort there, an Army historian and strategist has concluded.
"There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended.
While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Similar criticisms have been made before, but until now they have not been stated so authoritatively and publicly by a military insider positioned to be familiar with top-secret planning. During the period in question, from April to June 2003, Wilson was a researcher for the Army's Operation Iraqi Freedom Study Group. Then, from July 2003 to March 2004, he was the chief war planner for the 101st Airborne Division, which was stationed in northern Iraq. .....
As a result of the failure to produce a plan, Wilson asserts, the U.S. military lost the dominant position in Iraq in the summer of 2003 and has been scrambling to recover ever since. "In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative . . . gained over an off-balanced enemy," he writes. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
It was only in November 2003, seven months after the fall of Baghdad, that U.S. occupation authorities produced a formal "Phase IV" plan for stability operations, Wilson reports. Phase I covers preparation for combat, followed by initial operations, Phase II, and combat, Phase III. Post-combat operations are called Phase IV.
Many in the Army have blamed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other top Pentagon civilians for the unexpectedly difficult occupation of Iraq, but Wilson reserves his toughest criticism for Army commanders who, he concludes, failed to grasp the strategic situation in Iraq and so not did not plan properly for victory. He concludes that those who planned the war suffered from "stunted learning and a reluctance to adapt."
Army commanders still misunderstand the strategic problem they face and therefore are still pursuing a flawed approach, writes Wilson, who is scheduled to teach at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point next year. "Plainly stated, the 'western coalition' failed, and continues to fail, to see Operation Iraqi Freedom in its fullness," he asserts.
"Reluctance in even defining the situation . . . is perhaps the most telling indicator of a collective cognitive dissidence on part of the U.S. Army to recognize a war of rebellion, a people's war, even when they were fighting it," he comments. Because of this failure, Wilson concludes, the U.S. military remains "perhaps in peril of losing the 'war,' even after supposedly winning it."
Overall, he grades the U.S. military performance in Iraq as "mediocre."
Wilson's essay amounts to an indictment of the education and performance of senior U.S. officials involved in the war. "U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly" and tended to think of operations after the invasion "as someone else's mission," he says. In fact, Wilson says, those later operations were critical because they were needed to win the war rather than just decapitate Saddam Hussein's government.
Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, who as chief of the Central Command led the war planning in 2002 and 2003, states in his recent memoir, "American Soldier," that throughout the planning for the invasion of Iraq, Phase IV stability operations were discussed. Occupation problems "commanded hours and days of discussion and debate among CENTCOM planners and Washington officials," he adds. At another point, he states, "I was confident in the Phase IV plan."
Asked about other officers' reaction to his essay, Wilson said in an e-mail Monday, "What active-duty feedback I have received (from military officers attending the conferences) has been relatively positive," with "general agreement with the premises I offer in the work."
He said he has no plans to publish the essay, in part because he would expect difficulty in getting the Army's approval, but said he did not object to having it written about. "I think this is something that has to get out, so it can be considered," he said in a telephone interview. "There actually is something we can fix here, in terms of operational planning."
In his analysis of U.S. military operations in 2003 in northern Iraq, Wilson also touches on another continuing criticism of the Bush administration's handling of Iraq -- the number of troops there. "The scarcity of available 'combat power' . . . greatly complicated the situation," he states.
Wilson contends that a lack of sufficient troops was a consequence of the earlier, larger problem of failing to understand that prevailing in Iraq involved more than just removing Hussein. "This overly simplistic conception of the 'war' led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies . . . and too little allotted time to achieve 'success,' " he writes.
Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions
By DOUGLAS JEHL and DAVID E. SANGER

Published: September 28, 2004 The National Intelligence Council is an independent group, made up of outside academics and long-time intelligence professionals. The C.I.A. describes it as the intelligence community's "center for midterm and long-term strategic thinking.'' Its main task is to produce National Intelligence Estimates, the most formal reports outlining the consensus of intelligence agencies. But it also produces less formal assessments, like the ones about Iraq it presented in January 2003.
One of the intelligence documents described the building of democracy in Iraq as a long, difficult and potentially turbulent process with potential for backsliding into authoritarianism, Iraq's traditional political model, the officials said.
The assessments were described by three government officials who have seen or been briefed on the documents. The officials spoke on condition that neither they nor their agencies be identified. None of the officials are affiliated in any way with the campaigns of Mr. Bush or Senator John Kerry. The officials, who were interviewed separately, declined to quote directly from the documents, but said they were speaking out to present an accurate picture of the prewar warnings. Wolfie RECONSTRUCT(Krugman 3-18-2005) You can say this about Paul Wolfowitz's qualifications to lead the World Bank: He has been closely associated with America's largest foreign aid and economic development project since the Marshall Plan. ……
Before the Iraq war, Pentagon hawks shut the State Department out of planning. This excluded anyone with development experience. As a result, the administration went into Iraq determined to demonstrate the virtues of radical free-market economics, with nobody warning about the likely problems.
Journalists who spoke to Paul Bremer when he was running Iraq remarked on his passion when he spoke about privatizing state enterprises. They didn't note a comparable passion for a rapid democratization.
In fact, economic ideology may explain why U.S. officials didn't move quickly after the fall of Baghdad to hold elections - even though assuring Iraqis that we didn't intend to install a puppet regime might have headed off the insurgency. Jay Garner, the first Iraq administrator, wanted elections as quickly as possible, but the White House wanted to put a "template" in place by privatizing oil and other industries before handing over control.
The oil fields never did get privatized. Nonetheless, the attempt to turn Iraq into a laissez-faire showpiece was, in its own way, as much an in-your-face rejection of world opinion as the decision to go to war. Dogmatic views about the universal superiority of free markets have been losing ground around the world.
TRAINING IRAQIS "You say we're training 100,000 Iraqi security forces and they'll take care of the situation? What happened to the 100,000 that Secretary Rumsfeld said were trained and ready last March?" "You say that training those 100,000 Iraqis is our highest priority. Then why is the American unit charged with this duty, under General Petraeus, at 30 percent of its authorized strength?
CLEANING UP MESS year ago (Sept 2002), American General John Abizaid published an internal Defense Department book about urban warfare. Abizaid's "Doctrine for Joint Urban Operations" (see sidebar) was all but ignored by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and General Tommy Franks, who ran the Iraq war and the initial postwar occupation.

Abizaid wrote about the massive troop requirements for urban warfare; warned of rapid burnout of soldiers and equipment assigned to urban battlegrounds; and time and again referenced catastrophic instances of over-confidence and under-preparedness among commanders and of disastrous misunderstandings of local cultures and their motivations. He also stressed how "essential" it is that "law enforcement" and other "routine activities" be "returned to civilian agencies as quickly as possible."

Abizaid was brought in a month ago to clean up the mess created by Franks and Rumsfeld.
STAFF CPA is one of the great scandals of the American occupation, although it has so far received little attention from the press. Republican political connections counted for far more than professional competence, relevant international experience, or knowledge of Iraq. In May, The Washington Post ran an account of three young people recruited for service in the CPA by e-mail, without interviews, security clearances, or relevant experience. They ended up responsible for spending Iraq's budget; because they knew little about the country or about financial procedures, they did so slowly. The failure to spend money was of course the source of enormous frustration to jobless Iraqis and undoubtedly produced recruits for the insurgency. According to the Post, the threesome, who included the daughter of a prominent conservative activist, had never applied to go to Iraq and could not figure out how they were selected. Finally they realized that the one thing they had in common was that they had applied for jobs at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which had kept their resumes on file.
In some cases, the quest for political loyalists meant dismissing qualified professionals who had already been recruited. In the June 20 Chicago Tribune, the reporter Andy Zajac described how, in April of 2003, the Bush administration replaced the chief CPA health official, Dr. Frederick Burkle, a medical doctor with close working relationships with humanitarian organizations and long experience in conflict zones, with James Haveman, a political crony of Michigan's Republican former governor. Unlike Dr. Burkle, who for months had been planning the restoration of Iraq's health care system and who was ready to put a program in action as soon as Baghdad fell, Haveman did not arrive in Iraq until June 7, 2003. Although he had never worked in a post-conflict environment, Haveman strongly denied that he lacked international experience, apparently considering his travel to twenty-six foreign countries (as he told the Chicago Tribune) a relevant qualification.
The privatizing of Iraq's economy was handled at first by Thomas Foley, a top Bush fund-raiser, and then by Michael Fleisher, brother of President Bush's first press secretary. After explaining that he had got the job in Iraq through his brother Ari, he told the Chicago Tribune—without any apparent sense of irony—that the Americans were going to teach the Iraqis a new way of doing business. "The only paradigm they know is cronyism."
Haveman, according to the Tribune, ignored Iraq's private health care system (which meets half the country's needs) and wasted huge amounts of money by refusing to collect data on the existing clinics. It is probably just as well that Iraq's privatization program has not worked out, since the CPA could not, as the agent of an occupying power, lawfully sell any Iraqi assets, although it is unlikely that Fleisher or Foley knew this.
US spending in Iraq has been slow and misdirected. Politically connected corporations, such as Vice President Cheney's Halliburton, received "no bid" contracts and have been accused of bilking the government with tens of millions in overcharges. But don't expect politically embarrassing investigations. The CPA's inspector general is Stuart Bowen Jr., a longtime Bush aide, who came to the position from the Washington lobbying firm of Patten Boggs. Among the contracts he is supposed to monitor is one for URS, a client whose $30 million contract he helped obtain. The US failure to meet the basic needs of ordinary people in postwar Iraq is the major reason so many Iraqis feel so bitterly angry with the occupation. The failure was not a matter of money. From the start the CPA had access to more than $1 billion in cash left behind by Saddam's regime and $4 billion in UN oil-for-food funds earmarked for Kurdistan, but redirected (to the great anger of the Kurds) to a CPA-controlled budget. In October 2003, the US Congress appropriated $19 billion for Iraq reconstruction. The CPA also controlled revenues from Iraqi oil exports, which were, in spite of periodic sabotage, very substantial.
Eight months after receiving the congressional appropriation, however, the CPA had spent less than $500 million of it on reconstruction. The only part of Iraq not subject to the CPA's financial control was Kurdistan, where the regional government received a cash allocation equal to just 6 percent of Iraq's total budget (on a per capita basis it should have received 15 percent), but spent it so effectively that the local economy has enjoyed a boom that, in some areas, outstripped the local labor market. By contrast, unemployoment in Arab Iraq has hovered around 50 percent. The hiring of unqualified staff by the CPA, documented by the Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post, helps to explain why the CPA (known to my Iraqi friends as "Cannot Provide Anything") accomplished so little.
Reconstruction Funds Bypass Iraqis (center for strategic and int'l studies)
Much of the $18.4 billion dollars appropriated for the reconstruction effort in Iraq last year will never reach Iraqi hands, "as much as 73 percent of the funds is spent on security and insurance costs for foreign contractors, U.S. government overhead, profits for foreign companies, salaries for foreign workers, and corruption, fraud, and mismanagement." An estimated 27 percent is left to provide "direct benefit to Iraqis and Iraq's economy." (http://www.csis.org/
LOOT AND DISORDERIn the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein's most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government's first extensive comments on the looting.

The Iraqi official, Sami al-Araji, the deputy minister of industry, said . . . "They came in with the cranes and the lorries, and they depleted the whole sites," Dr. Araji said. "They knew what they were doing; they knew what they want. This was sophisticated looting." . . .

Dr. Araji said equipment capable of making parts for missiles as well as chemical, biological and nuclear arms was missing from 8 or 10 sites that were the heart of Iraq's dormant program on unconventional weapons. After the invasion, occupation forces found no unconventional arms, and C.I.A. inspectors concluded that the effort had been largely abandoned after the Persian Gulf war in 1991.

. . . his account raises the possibility that the specialized machinery from the arms establishment that the war was aimed at neutralizing had made its way to the black market or was in the hands of foreign governments.





Army report: U.S. lost control in Iraq three months after invasion
SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM
Monday, March 7, 2005
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military lost its dominance in Iraq shortly after its invasion in 2003, a study concluded.
A report by the U.S. Army official historian said the military was hampered by the failure to occupy and stabilize Iraq in 2003. As a result, the military lost its dominance by July 2003 and has yet to regain that position.
"In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative gained over an off-balanced enemy," the report said. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."
The report was authored by Maj. Isaiah Wilson, the official historian of the U.S. Army for the Iraq war. Wilson also served as a war planner for the army's 101st Airborne Division until March 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. His report, not yet endorsed as official army history, has been presented to several academic conferences.
In November 2003, the military drafted a formal plan for stability and post-combat operations, Wilson said. Termed Phase-4, the plan was meant to follow such stages as preparation for combat, initial operations and combat. "There was no Phase IV plan," the report said. "While there may have been plans at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these plans operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse. There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations."
Other military commanders, including former Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks, have disputed Wilson's conclusions. They said the military entered Iraq with a stabilization plan.
The report disclosed the lack of planning by the U.S. military for the occupation of Iraq. Over the last year, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his aides have been blamed for lack of post-war planning based on their assessment that the military campaign in Iraq would be brief and quickly lead to a democratic and stable post-Saddam Hussein government.
In contrast, Wilson said army planners failed to understand or accept the prospect that Iraqis would resist the U.S. forces after the fall of the Saddam regime. He deemed the military performance in Iraq mediocre and said the army could lose the war.
"U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly," the report said. "This overly simplistic conception of the war led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies and too little allotted time to achieve success."

Rummyache

Final exam question : Why are these generals so angry at Rummy?

RUMMYACHE
Issue of 2006-05-01
Posted 2006-04-24
In the ongoing South Americanization of political culture north of the border—a drawn-out historical journey whose markers include fiscal recklessness, an accelerating wealth gap between the rich and the rest, corruption masked by populist rhetoric, a frank official embrace of the techniques of “dirty war,” and, by way of initiating the present era, a judicial autogolpe installing a dynastic presidente—what has been dubbed the Revolt of the Generals is one of the feebler effusions. But it is striking all the same. By last week, the junta had swelled to six members: General Anthony C. Zinni, of the Marine Corps (four stars); Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, also of the Marines (three stars); and Major Generals John Batiste, Paul D. Eaton, John Riggs, and Charles H. Swannack, Jr., of the Army (two stars). Some reckon that Wesley Clark (Army, four stars), William E. Odom (ditto, three stars), and Bernard E. Trainor (Marines, three stars) are entitled to spots as auxiliary members. All these generals have said devastating things about the job performance of the current Secretary of Defense, particularly with respect to the Iraq war. Their critiques vary—some of them see the war as a series of tactical blunders, others as a strategic disaster doomed from the start—but on one point the Pentagon Six are unanimous: Please. Bring us the head of Donald Rumsfeld.
This brass band of clarion calls for Rumsfeld’s resignation or dismissal has occasioned a certain amount of hand-wringing about alleged threats to the constitutional principle of civilian control of the military. But, as military coups go, this one is pretty weak tea by hemispheric standards. Instead of seizing the radio stations and the Presidential Palace, our disgruntled generals are content to overrun the op-ed pages, the bookstore signing tables, and the greenrooms of the cable-TV news talk shows. Also (and this is not a small point), the generals in question, however youthful and vigorous some of them may appear, are retired. They are no longer links in the chain of command; not being subordinate, they can’t be insubordinate. They are civilians. And they are every bit as entitled to express their views publicly, and to give their former civilian superiors a hard time in the process, as were Andrew Jackson in 1824, and Dwight Eisenhower in 1952—not to mention the nine other ex-generals who became President, beginning with General George Washington (ret.), in 1789.
There’s nothing new, let alone unconstitutional, about the bitching of pensioned-off generals. What is unusual—unprecedented, apparently—is for so many to speak out so strongly against a prominent architect of an ongoing war and to demand his removal. But then it is also unusual (though not, alas, unprecedented) for the United States to fight a war of choice on the basis of ideological fervor and faulty or falsified intelligence. And it is not just unusual but unprecedented for the stated primary aims of such a war (in this case, to prevent Iraq from obtaining weapons of mass destruction and from aiding terrorist attacks on the American homeland) to have been achieved before a shot was fired, forcing the war’s advocates to scramble for new ones.
The generals’ revolt of 2006 has resonated. One reason, no doubt, is that the experience of these particular generals suggests that they know what they are talking about. Three of the six—Batiste, Eaton, and Swannack—held positions of command in Iraq; a fourth, Zinni, is steeped in the region, having served as chief of the U.S. Central Command and as President Bush’s own special envoy to the Middle East. A second reason is their relative immunity to assaults of the kind that right-wing publicists and talk-radio hosts routinely launch at the patriotism and integrity of Iraq-war critics. One or two bemedalled warriors can be taken down that way; a dense pack is not so easily Swift-boated.
If the generals have struck a chord, a third reason, surely, is a widespread public hunger for some sort of accountability. The White House dimly understands this; hence last week’s highly touted “shake-up,” which saw the departure of the President’s hapless press secretary and the lateral transfer of Karl Rove from deputy chief of staff for policy to just plain deputy chief of staff. These moves, though, are entirely beside the point. If Bush were serious about stanching the hemorrhage of public support for any kind of American role in Iraq, then Rumsfeld’s exit—a step that has been suggested not only by generals and Democrats but also by conservative hawks like George Will, Max Boot, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol—would be the obvious beginning. The President’s response has been an adamant refusal. “I’m the decider,” he said last Tuesday. “And I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the Secretary of Defense.”
His reasons for this decision are obscure, a matter for speculation—wild speculation, as he might phrase it. “We had an accountability moment,” Bush said a few days before his second Inaugural, “and that’s called the 2004 election.” Perhaps he thinks that that was the last such moment he owes the country; perhaps dumping Rumsfeld would feel too much like another one. Perhaps his attachment to Rumsfeld—whom the elder President Bush is known to dislike—has something to do with the younger’s need for substitute fathers. Perhaps he is simply afraid to lose him, for reasons he understands no better than the rest of us. A couple of weeks ago, answering a question from a student after giving a speech at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies, Bush provided a hint of the emotional texture of his extraordinary dependence on his Secretary of Defense. “My question,” the young woman said,
is in regards to private military contractors. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not apply to these contractors in Iraq. I asked your Secretary of Defense a couple months ago what law governs their actions.

The President: I was going to ask him. Go ahead. (Laughter) Help. (Laughter)

Q: I was hoping your answer might be a little more specific. (Laughter) Mr. Rumsfeld answered that Iraq has its own domestic laws, which he assumed applied to those private military contractors. However, Iraq is clearly not currently capable of enforcing its laws. . . . Mr. President, how do you propose to bring private military contractors under a system of law?

The President : I appreciate that very much. I wasn’t kidding. (Laughter ) I was going to—I pick up the phone and say, Mr. Secretary, I’ve got an interesting question. (Laughter ) This is what delegation—I don’t mean to be dodging the question, although it’s kind of convenient in this case, but never— (laughter ). I really will—I’m going to call the Secretary and say you brought up a very valid question, and what are we doing about it? That’s how I work. I’m—thanks. (Laughter )
Thanks? No. No, thanks. (And no laughter.) He’s the decider, and there’s the rub.

— Hendrik Hertzberg

Clinton New Democrats

Papers – happy to have re-writes -

NEW DEMOCRATS HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Clinton was what is called a “New Democrat”
old “New Deal” Democrats liked big government programs like Social Security and Medicare
wanted Government to regulate business pretty heavily
New Dems responded to American disillusion with Government & distaste for bureaucracies
“I don't like to be bossed”
BUT there are things where “externalities” from individual or corporate greed need to be curbed
Try to achieve results in least intrusive way – market incentives
Cut government spending and bureaucracy Gore “reinventing gGovernment”
cut 500,000 employees
Bush43 – huge increase federal employees and spending
Internet project – very libertarian – opens communication – beyond big-media filter
Telecommunications industry wants regulation limiting competition and taxes
New Dems instead LOVE open competition & communication– limit taxation – competitive markets
Gore has nurtured “Information Superhighway” earlier 1985 & 1989 with
funding for research on fibre-optics and hi-speed switches
set common protocols to make various networks ethernet, Arpanet .... compatible
Keep the “individual effort” part of capitalism – Welfare reform –
with incentives for work instead of punishment of those who see poor as evil or inferior

“LIBERAL” THINKING
Clinton always understands market oriented positions & argues his opponent's position before deciding
often better than the opponent can
Limbaugh ridicules empathy with others - “I feel your pain”
if world is divided into Good VS Evil why should you sympathize with EVIL?
Clinton is often indecisive – too open to other ideas to be politically or ideologically tidy & Simple
opposite Reagan and Bush43 – go with very simple gut reaction and simple stories
More free market programs than Gingrich – Muc much more than Bush43Republicans
Always a compromiser – from household where he loves alcoholic step-father
abuses mother – takes shot at Bill as teen – always looking to defuse conflict – anti-ideological
only stands up for poor & against increasing inequality
everything else is negotiable
AVOID WEDGE ISSUES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE – PICK A COMMON SENSE MIDDLE
Abortion – reduce the number of abortions VS
Scream about morality and increase rates by hurting poor women economically
Clinton has Reaganesque talent for translating policy into emotions

Domestic policy rhetoric "every working person should have a chance"
strengthen "Earned Income" tax credit
Welfare Reform – increase child care & do not cut off health care "make work pay"
Fight Republican rhetoric of undeserving poor
Clinton Irritates Old-Left "Entitlement" Democrats
in Gerrymandered Poor & Black "Liberal" Districts
Due to continuing “scandals” Clinton can't get big programs through Republican Congress –
Small incrimental & persistent
WORKING CLASS & Poor Children BENEFITS
Head Start $2.8 billion to $5.3 Billion
Child Care $4.5 biillion to $9.3 billion
Earned Income Tax Credit $12.4 billion to $30.4 billion
$30 billion New tax credits for higher education – affects more people than GI Bill
$24 billion Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
(Bush43 cuts taxes on energy in Texas – covers lower % children through CHIP than any other state
fights increase in education funding – takes credit when he is overridden – predecessors did hard education work
leaves huge deficits for successor to fix)

BUDGET FIGHT & DEFICITS
Gingrich & Republican anti-government forces want MORE TAX CUTS FOR RICH to solve deficits
CLINTON - Right after election finds out that Bush Administration statements grossly underestimate
present and future deficits –
Clinton had promised tax cuts and social spending but now feels he must bite the bullet
Clinton - raise taxes ON UPPER INCOME & cut spending to make economy viable long term
everybody hates both – Republicans hate progressive taxes - Dems hate spending cuts
Republicans like Steve Forbes predict 39% marginal rates on upper income taxpayers will damage
incentives to invest - the onerous labor of sitting and investing millions
Reagan who made $1/2 million per movie and decided to make only 3 movies a year –
investors will sit on sidelines “American economy will be ruined; put your $$$ in Japan”
INSTEAD CLINTON economy CREATES EXCESS Investment – Bubble -
twice as much car, steel capacity - 3 times fibre-optic-cable capacity
Balanced budgets don't suck up private capital with deficits – Clinton gets savings rate up slightly
(now negative B43)
Bush43 Huge tax cuts for rich – deficits video
At first wants them because “surplus too big”
when deficits rise wants more cuts – especially Capital Gains – to “decrease deficits”
when we have "excess capacity" wants to encourage investment (more capital) instead of demand
Higher Taxes on labor relative to capital or energy hurts hiring – payroll tax etc -
Clinton - EITC & other pro-labor tax policy creates huge jobs growth
Bush43 Jobs growth does not match increase in population
Labor Market participation from 65% to aapprox 63%
Labor gets small fraction of it's usual share of growth
Corporate profits record highs level and %
Gore wants to cut payroll taxes and puit Social Security on slightly progressive general revenues

Discretionary non-defense spending (before Katrina)
Nixon/Ford: 6.8% per year
Carter: 2.0% per year
Reagan: -1.3% per year
Bush I: 4.0% per year
Clinton: 2.5% per year
Bush II: 8.2% per year
next person to be elected will be screwed – huge deficits – have to cut spending and raise tgaxes

HEALTH CARE
Why auto industry jobs are moving from Detroit to Ontario
Clinton has no mandate – 43% vote – cannot go for “Single Payer” politically – “socialized medicine”
Hillary takes over with Guilt-leverage from Bimbo-alarms
Universal coverage eliminates:

Free Riders people with low odds of illness (or poor) do not get insurance – use emergency rooms
very expensive, no preventative – whole system costs more

ADVERSE SELECTION
Insurance companies spend huge amounts (15% administrative costs) trying to figure out
who not to cover – avoid those with previously existing conditions who need care
diabetes and other chronic diseases not treated – huge costs at emergency, end of life
Religious Right & Terry Shiavo – $$$ hundreds of thousands - one person with liquid brain
if a blastula is “murder” Schiavo must be “life” too
the world is not over-populated – God Will Provide - we need every possible child,
but must not help poor mothers – encourage laziness
Large Co-operatives give:

Market leverage
Veterans Administration gets drugs for 1/3 retail cost –

Hillary Plan –
“Managed Competition” between a few large Blue-Cross-Blue-Shield type organizations
each large enough to negotiate low drug and service prices
compete with each other on providing “extras” above basic requirements

Republican Prescription Drug Benefit – Law forbids market competition Drug prices
even if Democrats were to change that thousands of plans – lots of research for elderly
not big enough to have market power against Big-Pharmaceuticals
Passed with Republican votes only – vote kept open for bribes and threats –
earmarks bribe – no hearings – Republicans increase by 100 times
Campaign contributions – K-Street Project – lobbying firms only hire Republicans
Campaign contibutions go to Republicans even heavier than usual
Stifle Government Accountant – forbid testimony – costs twice as much as claimed
so it can meet bogus budget limit

Health Savings Accounts – big deductions for rich taxpayers who already have coverage
remove rich and healthy from insurance pool

Prescription Drug Benefit - written by Pharmaceutical industry
NO negotiation for low prices – pay 3X more for drugs – get lots of campaign $$$$$ pharmaceutical
NO clear requirements for coverage – thousands of web-sites for elderly to investigate – SCAM?
Strong-Arm tactics – Republicans hold vote open while they bribe & threaten wavering members
Lie about cost – Government accountant silenced – cost underestimated – less than half reality
only talk short term – adds $8 Trillion long term debt – double in one year – equal all previous debt

Welfare Reform – just before 1996 election – Clinton Campaign promise -
Republicans put in gratuitous brutal provisions – limit food stamps and childhood disability payments
deny benefits to legal immigrants
Hope Clinton will veto – he doesn't – but gets rid of nasty stuff after winning election
in 1986 single mother eleave welfare makes $2,000 more, lose health care
1999 single mother makes $7,000 more & keep health benefits
Good policy to encourage work – poverty declines sharply – big increase labor market participation

FARM SUBSIDIES
Clinton cuts – take money from American consumers to subsidize
hi-Capital hi-petrochemical farming
Sugar Beets – keep people in Carribean poor – WTO fighting –
we're not as bad as Europe & Japan
cultural significance of rice farming – French want picturesque farms & traditional slow food irrigation & water projects – horrible to environment
Everglades – use wetlands as free sewer for agriculturel wastes & steal water for cities & irigation
Bush huge raise in subsidies – easy politically

NAFTA & FREE TRADE –
Clinton offends labor unions who want protection – gets passage on Bi-Partisan basis
Bush43 Goes against free-market principles for political purposes
2000 Election – promises steel tariffs to West Virginia and Pennsylvania –
close states in election – too much steel capacity – 30,000 jobs at risk – increase price steel
wins West Virginia (also promises to allow mountaintop removal coal mining –
weaken clean water rules (Federalist Society property rights fundamentalism Judges
This drives up Steel prices for the 30,000 at risk steel jobs
higher steel prices hurts 300,000 jobs in Appliance and auto parts industries – local Carrier layoff

ENVIRONMENT AND Pollution – tax, not regulation and bureaucrats - make industry pay for cleaning up their own mess
Pollution credit trading – if you cut pollution by a higher percentage than required
you get to sell to other companies that have more difficult problem cutting pollution
the cuts are accomplished with an incentive to achieve extra cuts where cheap
more pounds of pollution removed for less cost
Acid Rain Sulfur-dioxide pollution cuts achieved at 1/10 of expected cost with pollution-credit-trading
tend to remove pollution from the most primitive older industries – often in low-income area
which have less political clout – reduces “environmental ghettos” in
avoid pork and “agency capture”
Ralph Nader angry AT CLINTON-GORE– he shares the religious-right “good must punish evil”
but reverses it – ReligRight good capital & rich VS undeserving-poor laboring
Nader sees Good consumer VS evil corporation
Nader condems pragmatic market compromise – must go to court and find against evil corp
condemns Joan Claibrook for working for Carter – compromise with Nader's holy outlook
tells voters to vote Reagan not Carter , Bush, not Gore
Judges effectiveness by number of lawsuits (Exxon Valdiz case takes many years) or large Bureaucracy

New Democrats Adam Smith was right – markets are good – but a government of businessmen
is likely to be a device for enriching themselves and fleecing the poor - worry about :
AGENCY CAPTURE -
Bush 43 and Federal Energy Commission (or Cheney energy task force – industry writes report)
Ken Lay of ENRON gets to select head of Federal Energy Commission (gave Bush43 $2 million – Gore $20,000)
BIG HELP WITH ELECTION OF 2000
Enron traders get to manipulate energy prices with strategic shutdown of plants at hi-demand times
steal $28 billion from California
California gets $27 billion debt – dissatisfaction with government leads to Arnold Schwartznegger gov
fo fix deficit? Cut taxes on cars. Issue bonds to let thew future pay debt

Deregulation – Carter market oriented vs Reagan fat cats unregulated, avoid transparency
Trasparency & efficiency – Gore “competence is charisma”

ENERGY Gore pushes BTU – Energy tax – promotes alternative energy by market mechanism
REPUBLICANS DO ALTERNATIVE ENERGY THROUGH SUBSIDY - OPPORTUNITY FOR PORK
B43 & farm state Senators & reps give subsidies to favored political groups –
farm states disproportionate power -
Senate apportionment – 17% of population in sparsely populated states can elect 51 votes
Ethanol inefficient byt politically dynamite

SCIENCE
Newt Gets Rid of OFFICE OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT - independent scientific advisory
Newt's Political power NEEDS emotional issues – not careful practical assessment
Star Wars assessments by elite National Academy of Science - peer-reviewed
have angered Reganites
Condoms, AIDS PS Senator Doctor Frist must lie about AIDS spreading from tears and condom failure rates
Evolution – School boards do science – gets Christian Right excited – great political issue,

Global Warming –
Science is inconvenient politically & financially
campaign contributions Big Oil, Pharmaceuticals, Christian Right in jepardy
School Bards are better at Science than Scientists?
Republican party is party of Producing coalition: Oil Industry, mining, Industrial farming, Western anti-environmentalism, SUV's and NASCAR, long
Al Gore Book “Earth in the Balance” argues that not paying for costs of unbridled consumption
pollution, global warming, Mid-East involvement - endangers the future of the world

1994 ELECTION
Gingrich Contract with America – runs a national campaign – LlIMBAUGH & Religious right
Gingrich plays Hardball in House – kills seniority – puts loyalists into committee chairmanship
Term Limits – fits anti-Government rhetoric
removes expertise and institutional memory - those proud of their place in Government
Beginning of more centralized fundraising – House of Representatives especially
increase Earmarks -
BALANCED BUDGED AMENDMENT great rhetoric – bad policy
Medicare cuts & more tax cuts for rich

SHUTDOWN GOVERNMENT – battle to the finish – Gingrich strategy vs
Clinton “Deep cuts health care Education & new taxes on working people”
“Put your cuts on the table”
Gingrich whines - President dissed me on plane to mideast – pouting does not work on public wins
During shutdown young intern who has a history of seducing older men in HS flashes thong at
“ELVIS” President in empty White House without staff around – hanging around for negotiations
very nervous and depressed from election results – oops – no “SEX” just foreplay
depending on how old you are (Under 50's believe Oral is not “SEX” - over 50's reverse)
Gingrich – only accept measures that will pass with 100% of Republican votes – no compromise

Election 1996
Clinton spends $ early – paint Dole as ally of Gingrich Hard Right

Mid-East – distinction between B43 & Reagan VS Clinton & B41
after 200 Colin Powell wants to continue – Mid east, Korea, terror – Al
sets country on good fiscal path
be a slob – dems will be unpopular cleaning up our crap
Video – Okla City parallel 9-11 – President gets power

FOREIGN POLICY
Jimmy Carter “Human Rights” “Do unto others – it pays in the long run”
punish human rights violators by witholding aid or trade –
BUT : Talk to even the worst sinners – understand everyone - where they're coming from
know reality and history “Cultural sensitivity” – Liberal arts - understand from many POV Negotiate even with North Korea etc
Try to avoid strong support for thugs – encourage Samoza to leave Nicaragua
do not encourage SHAH to use massive force against demonstrators
SOMALIA Bush41 accepts this humanitarian logic – intervenes in Somalia to stop humanitarian tragedy
Clinton continues – Clan leader Aidid stealing humanitarian convoys – attempt to capture fails
“Black Hawk Down” - Powell left just before as head JCS –
Defense Secretary Aspin fired – accountability for errors not enough armor for mission
Makes Clinton scared to intervene in Rwanda genocide
MEXICO Clinton bails out Mexican economy with loans – paid back ahead of schedule
avoid disoorder and suffering -
Gingrich opposes loans to “drug-running-dictatorship”
AFGHANISTAN Clinton hits Bin Laden cammps – Repubs “wag the dog” get back to Monica
Democrats learn the lesson of failed states and disorder as primary problem -
create “Peace Keeping Institute” - Army loves – since Ike – Army should not do Peacekeeping
Right-wing-Republicans happy to punish evil Soviets
Condaleeza Rice essay against “Nation Building” -
HAITI
SOUTH AFRICA – boycott Apartheid & demand democracy vs Reagan against Sanctions
VIETNAM – recognize vs continue to punish
BOSNIA – intervene to stop Genocide
RWANDA
ISRAEL
1998 – Embassy Bombing Kenya and Tanzania
Clinton hits training camps in Afghanistan & “Asprin Factory” in Sudan owned by Bin Laden
Republicans claim “Wag the Dog” attempt to distract attention from Monica'