Dan Rather vs. George Bush

Source: Email Forward
By BaysideLI@aol.com
26 Sept. 2004

Dan Rather, CBS News Anchor --
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
4) when challenged, launched an investigation, quickly apologized
5) substance of the bogus documents appears to have been true anyway
6) cost to the world in lives and money: zero
7) Bush camp conclusion: should be fired as CBS News Anchor

George W. Bush, President of the United States --
1) given documents he thought were true
2) failed to thoroughly investigate the facts
3) reported documents to the American people as true to make his case
4) when challenged, stonewalled an investigation, never apologized
5) substance of the bogus documents appears to have been . . . bogus
6) cost to the world in lives and money: thousands and billions
7) Bush camp conclusion: four more years!

Group Questions Cat Stevens' U.S. Deportation

Source: Hollywood.com
By City News Service
23 Sept. 2004

An Islamic group with offices in Anaheim called on the Bush administration today to explain why Yusuf Islam--formerly the singer who performed as Cat Stevens--was denied entry into the United States.

"Yusuf Islam is, perhaps, one of the most widely known and respected personalities in the Muslim world," according to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, Southern California.

Treating "mainstream and moderate Muslims like Yusuf Islam as if they are criminals or terrorists, without bringing charges or allowing due process, sends the message to the Islamic world that even those who seek peace and condemn terror are not fit to enter the United States."

A United Airlines London-to-Washington, D.C.-flight was diverted to Bangor, Maine, yesterday after authorities learned that Islam, 56, was on the flight.

Islam "should not have been allowed on the flight in the first place because he is on the no-fly list," Garrison Courtney of the Department of Homeland Security said in a telephone interview.

Islam "is inadmissible (to the United States) on national security grounds," said Courtney.

He said denying Islam entry was based on "new information the intelligence community put together." Courtney did not elaborate.

He did say that Islam was denied entry to Israel several years ago "for the same type of reason."

Islam reportedly has ties to at least one charitable group that may have contributed to the militant Palestinian organization Hamas.

Courtney said he believed that Islam has since been put on a plane and sent back to London. He said authorities were "researching how United Airlines even let him on the flight."

According to the Islamic group: "We call on the Bush administration to explain why Yusuf Islam was barred from coming to this country, and whether other internationally respected Muslim travelers or scholars will face such treatment in the future."

Born Stephen Georgiou to a Swedish mother and Greek Cypriot father, Islam--performing as Cat Stevens -- had a string of hits in the 1960s and '70s, including "Peace Train" and "Morning Has Broken."

He said his brother gave him a copy of the Koran in 1976 and it changed his life. The performer, who said he had been living a wastrel's life, converted to Islam and changed his name.

In the 1980s, Islam came under fire for his support of the Iranian-issued death sentence directed at author Salman Rushdie.

The fatwa--never carried out--was issued after Rushdie's book The Satanic Verses-- which some considered an attack on the Muslim faith--was published.

The Mysterious Case of Jack Idema: Is the U.S. Letting A Secret Special Ops Agent and a U.S. Journalist Be Jailed in Afghanistan?

Source: Democracy Now!
By Amy Goodman
23 Sept. 2004

Two weeks ago an Afghan court convicted two former U.S. soldiers and an Emmy Award-winning journalist and sentenced them to 8-10 years in prison for torturing Afghan prisoners in an illegal, private jail. Their U.S. attorneys are accusing the Afghan court system of conducting a sham trial. At the trial the attorneys attempted to introduce video evidence that indicates one of the defendants, Jonathan "Jack" Idema had close ties to the Pentagon and made personal calls to the office of Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, who has a history of leading special operations. But the Afghan judge refused to play the video. Today, in a broadcast exclusive, we air these tapes and speak with an attorney in the case, the brother of the jailed journalist as well as officials from the Pentagon and inside Gen. Boykin's office.

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

We're going to spend the hour today looking at a story that hasn't gotten much attention here in the United States. Last Wednesday, a court in Afghanistan convicted three Americans of torturing Afghans in an illegal private prison. The alleged ring leader of the operation is a former Green Beret named Jonathan "Jack" Idema. He was sentenced to 10 years, as was another former US soldier Brent Bennett. An Emmy-award winning journalist who spent extensive time filming the men received an 8-year sentence. On the surface, the story appears to be a case of private bounty hunters operating independently. In Washington, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said: "The Afghan government held the trial in accordance with Afghan law. Their decision was handed down by an Afghan court after a full trial had been conducted."

But Jack Idema, the former Green Beret tells a very different story. He says he was working with the US military with the approval of the Pentagon and the Afghan government. His lawyers have produced videotape showing Idema meeting with several key commanders of the Northern Alliance. Among them, the commanders of the Northern Front, the Southern Front and a number of commanders from Eastern Afghanistan. The tapes also show Idema meeting with the Afghan Minister of Defense Marshal Fahim. On the tape, Idema is describing to the Minister an assassination plot against Fahim that Idema says he has uncovered. Idema also had in his possession a letter of introduction addressed to an Afghan commander. The letter was on army stationary and signed by a New York based officer.

During the trial Idema's attorney planned to play a video shot by Caballero as part of his documentary project in an attempt to establish a connection between Idema and the Pentagon.

But the judge ordered the screening to be stopped before a portion that purportedly shows Idema calling the office of the controversial General William Boykin. In the video, Idema speaks with a Pentagon employee named Jorge Shim who promised someone from the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, would call Idema back on his cell phone.

Jonathan "Jack" Idema speaking from Kabul, Afghanistan to Jorge Shim of Gen. William Boykin's office.

We contacted Shim yesterday and he confirmed that he had spoken to Idema on more than one occasion.

Jorge Shim, employee at Gen. William Boykin's office
At the trial attorneys for Idema and Caraballo also attempted to show another clip of Idema speaking with someone identified as Shim"s supervisor from General Boykin's office. Idema made the call after wanted posters for his arrest were put up around Kabul. During the conversation the unnamed official indicates the Pentagon is attempting to put up a firewall between his boss -- that is General Boykin -- and Idema in order to shield Boykin from more press criticism.

After Democracy Now obtained copies of these tapes yesterday we contacted Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Christopher Conway to clarify the connection between the Pentagon and Idema. Conway said "We did not employ, sanction or sponsor Mr. Idema."

Lt. Col. Christopher Conway, Pentagon spokesperson
While Conway claimed that the relationship between Idema and the Pentagon was largely one sided, attorneys for Idema have released a video that appears to show Idema making arrangements with a Pentagon official about handing over a suspected terrorist that he had caught.

Democracy Now! asked Pentagon spokesperson Lt. Col. Christopher Conway about this and he confirmed that Idema had indeed helped the Pentagon capture a suspected terrorist. But again Conway denied any formal relationship between Idema and Pentagon.

In our studio today we speak with attorney Robert Fogelnest who as just returned from Afghanistan as well as Edward Caraballo's brother, Richard.


Robert Fogelnest, attorney for journalist Edward Caraballo. In April and May of this year Fogelnest worked in Kabul with Legal Aid Afghanistan where he mentored, trained and supervised a team of eight Afghan public defenders. He is the former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Richard Caraballo, brother of jailed journalist Edward Caraballo

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

Articles Written by Juan Gonzalez on the Case:

"Justice Foreign to Afghan Court" (9/20/04)

"Kabul Guys Had Trial Wired" (9/23/04)

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for our new online ordering or call 1 (800) 881-2359.

'Everyone in the dock' in Kabul trial (re: Jack Idema)

Source: BBC News
By Andrew North
22 Sept. 2004

After dragging on almost two months - with just six actual court sessions - the strange trial of the three Americans accused of torture and running a private jail has come to an abrupt and dramatic end. At least for now.

Former US soldier "Jack" Idema and Brent Bennett were each given 10-year jail sentences in a Kabul court on Wednesday.

Their co-defendant Edward Caraballo - who says he is a journalist with them to document their activities in Afghanistan - received eight years. Four Afghans arrested with them in a Kabul house in July were also jailed.

But lawyers for the Americans say they will appeal.

Embarrassing revelations

The colourful Idema - sunglasses on in court as always - insisted again he was on an anti-terrorist mission approved by the Pentagon and the Afghan government.

And that his efforts had prevented several planned attacks by Islamic militants - including against US and Nato bases and Afghan politicians.

But there will be many in both governments who will be breathing a sigh of relief that for the moment, the case is over - and out of the public eye. It has proved embarrassing for them, because of a drip feed of revelations.

First, there was the admission by US forces that they had received a detainee from Idema at their main Bagram airbase - an admission which they only made after he had revealed this in court.

The man was released, the US military said, but two months later.

Then, long after the trial was underway, the Pentagon said one of its senior officials had had contact with Idema - as he had claimed back in July. But a defence department official insisted this was to turn down Idema's offer to work for them.

Conspiracy theories

But while far from conclusive for Idema's case, they left the impression among some that the American authorities are hiding something.

What has fed this is that US officials have never completely denied the possibility that Idema and his group were working for some part of its sprawling government and military system.

Last month, when asked by reporters for such a denial, a senior US official responded: "We can find no evidence that Jack Idema works for the US government."

Privately, some US officials say Idema "just does not fit" and is not the kind of person the intelligence agencies or special forces would take on. He is too much of a maverick, they argue.

But that little gap in the American public position leaves enough room for Afghanistan's many conspiracy theorists to speculate.

And in a country where ex-military personnel working on security contracts for the US government are everywhere, Idema did not seem out of place.

Video footage

The case has also embarrassed the Afghan government and senior political figures.

There was the revelation on video that the chief of the Kabul police force, General Baba Jan, had greeted Idema when he arrived in the country in April.

One of the charges the three Americans were facing was illegal entry to the country.

But despite appearing several times in the court during proceedings, the police chief never mentioned that he was there when Idema arrived.

Footage also emerged of Yunus Qanuni, a presidential candidate and former education minister, receiving Idema and apparently offering support for his plans.

But again, none of these revelations supported the core of Idema's case.

'Selective' translation

The former soldier and his lawyer John Tiffany protested they never had a chance to present the evidence that would have done so - because it was taken and held by the FBI.

Mr Tiffany and the lawyer for Edward Caraballo, Robert Fogelnest, also heavily criticised the whole process, saying the trial should be stopped because the Afghan justice system did "not meet international standards".

There is no doubt that some hearings descended into almost comical chaos, with witnesses having stand-up rows with Idema and the other Americans. And the prosecution seemed to base most of its case on accusation rather than evidence.

Translation was another problem - some of those chosen were not up to what was a difficult job.

But in one case, the translator also started offering the judge advice in Dari that was clearly biased against the Americans, whose words he was translating very selectively in any case.

This was picked up very quickly by other Afghan translators in the court room at the time.

Perhaps everyone ended up being on trial here - not just the three Americans, but also the Afghan authorities and the US government and its policy of using so many private military contractors to carry out its policies in Afghanistan.

CAMPAIGN 2004: WILL THE WORLD'S MOST EXCLUSIVE CLUB GET A MUCH NEEDED INFUSION OF NEW BLOOD?

Source: Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
22 Sept. 2004

The passion invested by the Democratic faithful in taking back the White House has meant that not enough has been said about the imperative of taking back control of the place John Kerry will hopefully be leaving — the United States Senate.

If Kerry is the next occupant of the Oval Office, he will need legislative muscle to undo the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, which have damaged our economy, degraded our environment, added millions to the roll of America's uninsured, and seriously undermined our national security. No executive order can reverse all that.

And if — close your ears, kids — Bush is actually able to scare his way to re-election, a Democratic Senate will be the only thing standing in the way of a second term all-out assault on America's working families, and the implementation of a radical right-wing social agenda. Don't forget, the next president will probably end up appointing at least a couple of Supreme Court justices — and Bush has made it clear that he'd fill any vacancies with clones of Antonin Scalia. See ya later, Roe vs. Wade; nice knowing ya, civil liberties. Don't forget to turn your clocks back a hundred years.

The good news is that the Democrats actually have a pretty good shot at turning Bill Frist into the Senate Minority Leader. (Don't you love the ring of that?)

In looking at the Senate races Democrats can win, I focused on the three open seats currently held by retiring Republicans in Illinois, Colorado and Oklahoma. In each of these states, the Democrats are putting forth a candidate — Barack Obama in Illinois, Ken Salazar in Colorado, and Brad Carson in Oklahoma — capable of bringing a new type of leadership to Washington.

Just for starters, Obama is black, Salazar is Hispanic, and Carson is a member of the Cherokee Nation — no small matter when you consider that despite making up over 25 percent of the U.S. population (accounting for more than 71 million Americans), there are currently no blacks, no Hispanics, and just one Native American in the Senate. The World's Most Exclusive Club, indeed.

But what separates and elevates these candidates goes far beyond race and ethnicity. It's their ability to focus on the Other America — the millions struggling to make ends meet — while retaining the ability to draw supporters from across the political spectrum.

As an added bonus, the three are running against some of the most troubling opponents ever to come down the political pike. Even if Obama, Salazar, and Carson weren't so appealing, their opponents — Alan Keyes in Illinois, Pete Coors in Colorado, and Tom Coburn in Oklahoma — are so repellent that their resounding defeat should be a priority for all sentient Americans. More on these bozos as we go along.

The nation saw firsthand the reasons for Obama's widespread appeal when he delivered his headline-making keynote speech at the Democratic convention: He is brilliant (a former president of the Harvard Law Review), charismatic, an eloquent speaker, and in possession of a life story that embodies the American dream. And thanks to his suddenly sky-high national profile, he'll arrive in Washington with the kind of clout most freshmen senators can only dream of — unless, of course, they're married to a former president of the United States.

More important, he has a passionate vision of what he wants to do with that clout: "George Bush," he told me, "clearly believes that the role of government is to protect the powerful from the powerless. We need to dramatically change our priorities."

Obama is currently way out in front of Keyes, the arch-conservative commentator-cum-carpetbagger who, since belatedly entering the race, has helped dig his own political grave with a series of outrageous comments, including equating Obama with slave owners, labeling Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter a "selfish hedonist," and claiming that, if he were around and living in Chicago, "Christ would not vote for Barack Obama."

Colorado's Salazar faces a tougher challenge: There are 193,000 more registered Republicans than Democrats in his state. Nevertheless, the popular two-time state attorney general has been able to open a lead by combining a two-fisted attack on President Bush's mishandling of Iraq, domestic security, the economy, and the environment with a down-home, folksy style. His pickup truck persona (complete with blue jeans and cowboy hat) has won him the support of a majority of the state's rural voters.

And when I heard him speak in Los Angeles last month, it was clear that his authenticity touched just as deep a chord with urban sophisticates. His commitment to closing the growing disparities between the opportunities available to the Two Americas is unmistakable.

He speaks movingly of how this division has affected his home state: "While the folks living in the densely populated counties along Colorado's Front Range have prospered over the last decade, those living in the state's 50 rural counties are struggling to survive. Their schools are not getting the attention they deserve, they are losing health care providers and access, they have been losing agricultural jobs, and no manufacturing jobs are locating there."

Salazar's opponent is Pete Coors, a political greenhorn. So far, this brewery heir's main contribution to the national dialogue has been his full-throated advocacy for lowering the drinking age from 21 to 18, arguing that such a move would encourage more sensible teenage drinking. Just the kind of altruistic leadership we need more of in Washington.

Given Oklahoma's unabashedly conservative bent — Bush carried the state by 22 percent in 2000, and currently leads Kerry by even more — it's nothing short of a miracle that Carson, a 37-year old, two-term Congressman, is running neck-and-neck with his Republican rival. Carson, a sixth-generation Oklahoman who turned down an opportunity to go to law school at Yale in favor of the University of Oklahoma, then devoted a third of his practice to providing free legal services to impoverished clients, has attracted the small town support essential to pulling off a major upset in this decidedly red state.

"Too many working Americans," Carson told me, "are seeing their jobs shipped overseas without enough of our elected officials in Washington fighting on their behalf. We've got to stop pursuing policies that leave behind middle class families — such as stripping workers of overtime pay, the pay that often makes the difference between a family having groceries for the last week of the month or doing without."

And it doesn't hurt that Carson's opponent, former Rep. Tom Coburn, is a shoot-from-the-lip extremist who favors "the death penalty for abortionists," supports the right to buy and use a bazooka, has called state lawmakers "crapheads," disparaged Indian treaties as "primitive" agreements, and claimed — in the midst of the war on terror — that the "gay agenda" is "the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today." Nothing like having your priorities in order.

Most experts agree that, in the end, the balance of power in the Senate will turn on what happens in the presidential race — particularly on the effectiveness of the key messages being put out by the Democratic nominee. So I asked Sen. Jon Corzine, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, what Kerry should be emphasizing to help Democrats win their races.

"Kerry should hammer away at 'the middle class squeeze,'" he told me, "the crisis of economic security brought on by Bush's domestic policies. He needs to keep pointing out how the president has failed the American people when it comes to jobs, health care, education and the environment. Millions of people are suffering — and it's because of Bush and the Republican Congress. That's a winning argument — for Kerry and for our Senate candidates."

And it could also turn out to be the recipe for an Election Night Democratic two-fer — taking back both the White House and the Senate.

© 2004 ARIANNA HUFFINGTON.
DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

John Kerry Speech at New York University

Source: Kerry Edwards Web Site
By John Kerry
20 Sept. 2004

New York, NY - I am honored to be here at New York University -- one of the great urban universities, not just in New York, but in the world. You have set a high standard for global dialogue and I hope to live up to that tradition today.

This election is about choices. The most important choices a President makes are about protecting America… at home and around the world. A president’s first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.

Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight… and to win… the war on terrorism.

With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th … and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer an unbearable loss – they helped us learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission. I ask them to stand. And I thank them on behalf of our country -- and I pledge to them and to you that I will implement the 9-11 recommendations.

In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straightforward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America’s ideals. We must reach them.

To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.

To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America’s strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world’s most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America’s power – our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values – each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.

National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made… and the choices I would make… to fight and win the war on terror.

That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.

This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops – and nearly 90 percent of the casualties – are American. Despite the President’s claims, this is not a grand coalition.

Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them… when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do… and what is still to be done.

In June, the President declared, “The Iraqi people have their country back.” Just last week, he told us: “This country is headed toward democracy… Freedom is on the march.”

But the administration’s own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story.

According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.

So do the facts on the ground.

Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.

42 Americans died in Iraq in June -- the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August… and already 54 halfway through September.

And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August – more than in any other month since the invasion.

We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times – a 400% increase.

Falluja…Ramadi… Samarra … even parts of Baghdad – are now “no go zones”… breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi’a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who’s accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.

Violence against Iraqis… from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation … is on the rise.

Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.

Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.

Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.

Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.

Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.

But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they’re sitting on the fence… instead of siding with us against the insurgents.

That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.

It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it’s essential if we want to correct our course and do what’s right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.

Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.

The President has said that he “miscalculated” in Iraq and that it was a “catastrophic success.” In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions … from the beginning … in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.

The first and most fundamental mistake was the President’s failure to tell the truth to the American people.

He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.

By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.

His two main rationales – weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection – have been proved false… by the President’s own weapons inspectors… and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.

The President also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.

He didn’t tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn’t tell us that he wouldn’t take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn’t tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn’t tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.

And America will pay an even heavier price for the President’s lack of candor.

At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.

Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace -- as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.

In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: “The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me.”

How many world leaders have that same trust in America’s president, today?

This President’s failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.

The President now admits to “miscalculations” in Iraq.

That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment – and judgment is what we look for in a president.

This is all the more stunning because we’re not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings… major outside studies… and even some in the administration itself… predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.

This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.

The administration told us we’d be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.

They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq’s infrastructure. They were wrong.

They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.

They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.

They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.

In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.

In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.

General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN -- and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn’t part of the original coalition – pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?

By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.

Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were… and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared “we are all Americans now.” But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.

We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the Vice President claimed, “reconstituted nuclear weapons.”

The President’s policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.

Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this President’s watch…

… The emerging nuclear danger from Iran…

… The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia…

… And the increasing instability in Afghanistan.

Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order to invade Iraq.

We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.

The President’s policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.

We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.

The President’s policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.

Let me put it plainly: The President’s policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.

Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President… any President… would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.

The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.

A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: “If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail.” He said that military action wasn’t “unavoidable.”

Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.

Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no – because a Commander-in-Chief’s first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.

Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the “capability” to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it’s not a reason, it’s an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?

I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker -- so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.

The President’s insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq -- and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.

In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America’s security for years to come.

All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.

Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the President was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this President makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq – harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is – and what is not – happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.

Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we’re “in deep trouble in Iraq … it doesn’t add up … to a pretty picture [and] … we’re going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy.” Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.

We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.

First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don’t have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.

Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the President finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do – but it was late.

That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops… trainers for Iraq’s security forces… a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission… more financial assistance… and real debt relief.

Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn’t matter.

And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.

The President should convene a summit meeting of the world’s major powers and Iraq’s neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq’s borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq’s future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq’s oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.

This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.

Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.

Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.

But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration’s own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can’t stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?

The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.

Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.

Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority … 17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical … 17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.

One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we’re paying the price.

Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects… and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.

Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.

Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.

Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad… and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission… the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.

The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won’t be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.

If the President would move in this direction … if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces … train the Iraqis to provide their own security …develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people … and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year … we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.

This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as President today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.

The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world’s responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that’s essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it’s up to them to run their own country. That’s the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.

On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read “Mission Accomplished.” He declared to the American people: “In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective – a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.

In Iraq, this administration’s record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.

At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.

The President often says that in a post 9-11 world, we can’t hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.

George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.

George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.

I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror – and make us safer.

Today, because of George Bush’s policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.

If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are …that we can make America stronger and safer than it is… then November 2 is your chance to speak... and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.

I’m convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America’s sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.

Put Away Your Hankies...a message from Michael Moore

Source: Michael Moore Email
by Michael Moore
21 Sept. 2004

Dear Friends,

Enough of the handwringing! Enough of the doomsaying! Do I have to come there and personally calm you down? Stop with all the defeatism, OK? Bush IS a goner -- IF we all just quit our whining and bellyaching and stop shaking like a bunch of nervous ninnies. Geez, this is embarrassing! The Republicans are laughing at us. Do you ever see them cry, "Oh, it's all over! We are finished! Bush can't win! Waaaaaa!"

Hell no. It's never over for them until the last ballot is shredded. They are never finished -- they just keeping moving forward like sharks that never sleep, always pushing, pulling, kicking, blocking, lying.

They are relentless and that is why we secretly admire them -- they just simply never, ever give up. Only 30% of the country calls itself "Republican," yet the Republicans own it all -- the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and the majority of the governorships. How do you think they've been able to pull that off considering they are a minority? It's because they eat you and me and every other liberal for breakfast and then spend the rest of the day wreaking havoc on the planet.

Look at us -- what a bunch of crybabies. Bush gets a bounce after his convention and you would have thought the Germans had run through Poland again. The Bushies are coming, the Bushies are coming! Yes, they caught Kerry asleep on the Swift Boat thing. Yes, they found the frequency in Dan Rather and ran with it. Suddenly it's like, "THE END IS NEAR! THE SKY IS FALLING!"

No, it is not. If I hear one more person tell me how lousy a candidate Kerry is and how he can't win... Dammit, of COURSE he's a lousy candidate -- he's a Democrat, for heavens sake! That party is so pathetic, they even lose the elections they win! What were you expecting, Bruce Springsteen heading up the ticket? Bruce would make a helluva president, but guys like him don't run -- and neither do you or I. People like Kerry run.

Yes, OF COURSE any of us would have run a better, smarter, kick-ass campaign. Of course we would have smacked each and every one of those phony swifty boaty bastards down. But WE are not running for president -- Kerry is. So quit complaining and work with what we have. Oprah just gave 300 women a... Pontiac! Did you see any of them frowning and moaning and screaming, "Oh God, NOT a friggin' Pontiac!" Of course not, they were happy. The Pontiacs all had four wheels, an engine and a gas pedal. You want more than that, well, I can't help you. I had a Pontiac once and it lasted a good year. And it was a VERY good year.

My friends, it is time for a reality check.

1. The polls are wrong. They are all over the map like diarrhea. On Friday, one poll had Bush 13 points ahead -- and another poll had them both tied. There are three reasons why the polls are b.s.: One, they are polling "likely voters." "Likely" means those who have consistently voted in the past few elections. So that cuts out young people who are voting for the first time and a ton of non-voters who are definitely going to vote in THIS election. Second, they are not polling people who use their cell phone as their primary phone. Again, that means they are not talking to young people. Finally, most of the polls are weighted with too many Republicans, as pollster John Zogby revealed last week. You are being snookered if you believe any of these polls.

2. Kerry has brought in the Clinton A-team. Instead of shunning Clinton (as Gore did), Kerry has decided to not make that mistake.

3. Traveling around the country, as I've been doing, I gotta tell ya, there is a hell of a lot of unrest out there. Much of it is not being captured by the mainstream press. But it is simmering and it is real. Do not let those well-produced Bush rallies of angry white people scare you. Turn off the TV! (Except Jon Stewart and Bill Moyers -- everything else is just a sugar-coated lie).

4. Conventional wisdom says if the election is decided on "9/11" (the fear of terrorism), Bush wins. But if it is decided on the job we are doing in Iraq, then Bush loses. And folks, that "job," you might have noticed, has descended into the third level of a hell we used to call Vietnam. There is no way out. It is a full-blown mess of a quagmire and the body bags will sadly only mount higher. Regardless of what Kerry meant by his original war vote, he ain't the one who sent those kids to their deaths -- and Mr. and Mrs. Middle America knows it. Had Bush bothered to show up when he was in the "service" he might have somewhat of a clue as to how to recognize an immoral war that cannot be "won." All he has delivered to Iraq was that plasticized turkey last Thanksgiving. It is this failure of monumental proportions that is going to cook his goose come this November.

So, do not despair. All is not over. Far from it. The Bush people need you to believe that it is over. They need you to slump back into your easy chair and feel that sick pain in your gut as you contemplate another four years of George W. Bush. They need you to wish we had a candidate who didn't windsurf and who was just as smart as we were when WE knew Bush was lying about WMD and Saddam planning 9/11. It's like Karl Rove is hypnotizing you -- "Kerry voted for the war...Kerry voted for the war...Kerrrrrryyy vooootted fooooor theeee warrrrrrrrrr..."

Yes...Yes...Yesssss....He did! HE DID! No sense in fighting now...what I need is sleep...sleeep...sleeeeeeppppp...

WAKE UP! The majority are with us! More than half of all Americans are pro-choice, want stronger environmental laws, are appalled that assault weapons are back on the street -- and 54% now believe the war is wrong. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE TO CONVINCE THEM OF ANY OF THIS -- YOU JUST HAVE TO GIVE THEM A RAY OF HOPE AND A RIDE TO THE POLLS. CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL YOU DO THAT?

Just for me, please? Buck up. The country is almost back in our hands. Not another negative word until Nov. 3rd! Then you can bitch all you want about how you wish Kerry was still that long-haired kid who once had the courage to stand up for something. Personally, I think that kid is still inside him. Instead of the wailing and gnashing of your teeth, why not hold out a hand to him and help the inner soldier/protester come out and defeat the forces of evil we now so desperately face. Do we have any other choice?

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mmflint@aol.com

"Tradition is the illusion of permanence"
Woody Allen

# # #

Action Alert! Letter from Ralph G. Neas (re: Education)

Source: Great Public Schools
by Ralph G. Neas
20 Sept. 2004

Every child has the right to a quality education. Yet despite repeated political promises, President Bush has neglected that right. Indeed, the President's own budget calls for deeper cuts in education beginning just after the election.

Let's band together and challenge this failure. People For the American Way is asking you to join us in what will be the largest citizen mobilization for great public schools ever:

http://www.greatpublicschools.org

This Wednesday, September 22nd, parents, teachers, students and concerned families will come together at meetings in homes, schools and churches across the country to launch a citizen-led fight for our public schools. People For the American Way, along with Campaign for America's Future, MoveOn.org, National Education Association and more than 40 allied groups, will sponsor these historic community meetings. Together, thousands of us will convene to confront the President's failing grades on education, and to begin to develop real solutions for the future.

Please join the thousands of teachers, parents and students who have already registered to host their own events or participate at others' -- sign up to attend a house party for great public schools:

http://www.greatpublicschools.org

President Bush and Congress have broken their promises to fund the No Child Left Behind Act, producing greater burdens on schools while short-changing them nearly $27 billion -- resources essential to making reforms work. Meanwhile, we're cutting taxes for millionaires and laying off teachers, slashing school construction and shortening the school year.

The facts are startling and demand real solutions:

-More American children than ever are pouring into already overcrowded schools.

-Many attend their first day of school without the preschool so vital to learning.

-America now faces the largest wave of teacher retirements in our country's history, while young teachers leave the classroom at alarming rates.

-14 million children are home alone after school, but after-school programs are the first to be cut in the current budget crunch.

-College costs are soaring, and loan and grant programs are not keeping up.
We have to put education back on the agenda in reality, not in rhetoric. And the only way that will happen is when teachers, parents, students and citizens join together to demand that our children's education be given the priority it deserves:

http://www.greatpublicschools.org

On September 22, our house parties will jump-start the national movement for our children's education. The parties will provide a living-room setting for friends and neighbors to talk about the challenges facing our schools and how we can make a difference.

I urge you to host or attend a house party on September 22 -- and join the mobilization for great public schools. It is the beginning of a movement for change, one living room at a time. Please join us:

http://www.greatpublicschools.org

Thank you,
Ralph G. Neas
President

Kit-Kat Club (re: Kitty Kelley's new book)

Source: James Wolcott Blog
Posted by James Wolcott
James Wolcott is a VANITY FAIR contributing editor
15 Sept. 2004

So far I have watched four cable news interviews with Kitty Kelley, author of The Evil Clampetts. And here is what I have learned about her book.

Not much.

The interviewers are all working off of the same talking points, the tone and thrust of their questioning so similar it's as if they all received the same fax from the Republican National Committee.

Normally when an author comes on to talk about a book as big and ambitious, the questioning is general before it moves to the specific. Normally, the average harried host would ask, "What made you decide to write about the Bushes? Who is the most interesting of the Bush family? Who is the most dangerous? What is the biggest public misconception about them?"

Etc.

But with Kelley, the questioning is super-specific, skeptical, and suspicious from the outset, keys in on the same hotspots from interview to interview (coke at Camp David, his refusal to take a flight physical, Laura's reputed past as a distribution point on campus for wacky weed), and cuts her answers short whenever she begins to dilate on the Bush modus operandi.

They grill her on sources, their authenticity, whether she spoke to that person directly or relied on hearsay. And in the interviews I've seen, Kelley has been cucumber-cool and composed, going up to the brink of the available evidence and no further, refusing to back down from her claims of Dubya's drug use, and more than holding her own.

The hypocrisy of the cable newsers reeks to low hell.

For years they've been hyping and peddling every variety of fishy speculation and brazen assertion about the Clintons, Vince Foster, Monica, Gary Condit-Chandra Levy, Laci Peterson, this rape case, that abduction case; they've rolled out the ratty carpet for every Swift Boat slob; and now, now, they decide to get loftily anal.

The worst interviews were on CNN. Aaron Brown fretted over the methodology and wondered why Kelley focused on the Bushes, since so many privileged families such as the Kennedys and the Rockefellers get away with all sorts of behavior without having to pay the price most people do--why pick on them?

Kelley smartly retorted that the Bushes have paid less price than most (what she didn't say, and could have, was two assassinations of Kennedy brothers was worse than anything the Bushes have had to endure). He was also troubled that she was implying Bush skipped his flight physical because of drug use, to which she said it was a logical inference and all Bush had to do was release the appropriate records.

Brown at least wasn't a snitty little twit, like the CNN interviewer this morning whose name, I believe, is Heidi Hairdo. From the outset her tone was brisk, assistant district-attorneyish, and yet schoolgirlishly naive, as when she couldn't understand why anyone would be "afraid" of the Bushes and Kelley laughed in snorting disbelief, as if she had to explain the facts of life to Miss Snippy.

Heidi Hairdo, like some of the other interviewers, seem to keep up an invisible cordon sanitarire, a starchy, disdainful discomfort at having to share the set with an author so disreputable and, oh dear, tacky. This from people who fawn over every narcissistic piece of Hollywood horseflesh making the rounds to promote their latest lousy movie.

What's clear is that the news media are uncomfortable with someone investigating the arrogant and disturbing patterns of behavior in the Bush dynasty. They can't ignore Kitty Kelley, but they want to keep her in her litter box. But she's a tiny tigress, and will not be contained.

Please Sign! Help the librarians and those of us who still read!

Source: The Campaign For Reader Privacy
17 Sept. 2004

Dear Friends,

We need your help!On September 29, 2004, American booksellers, librarians, writers, andpublishers will present members of Congress with petitions signed byreadersacross the United States that call for the restoration of library andbookstore privacy protections stripped by Section 215 of the USAPATRIOTACT. Author Salman Rushdie (President of PEN), former U.S.CongresswomanPatricia Schroeder (President of the Association of AmericanPublishers), Mitchell Kaplan (President of the American Booksellers Association), andCarla Hayden (past President of the American Library Association) willdeliver the petitions to Representative Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and abipartisan group of Representatives and Senators who have been leadingtheeffort to amend Section 215 to protect reader privacy.

If you have not already signed on the Reader Privacy campaignpetition,please visit www.readerprivacy.com to add your name to the list ofnamesthat we will be presenting to Congress on September 29!

More than 170,000 readers have already signed the reader privacypetition,and their support has already made a difference: On July 8, 210 membersofthe House of Representatives voted for the Freedom to Read Amendment, abillthat would have banned the Justice Department from using the secretwarrantsavailable under section 215 to search bookstore and library records.TheAmendment would have passed if House leaders had not held the voteopenuntil they could persuade a handful of members to switch their votes.Although we lost the battle, the vote clearly showed that support foramending section 215 is growing.

Please take the time to add your name to the Reader Privacy petitiontoday,and urge everyone you know who cares about the freedom to visit www.readerprivacy.com to sign on, too. This is the chance to make yourvoices heard!

With many thanks for your support,The Campaign for Reader Privacy (a joint initiative of the AmericanBooksellers Association, the American Library Association, the Association of American Publishers, and PEN American Center)

Special Delivery: A Hogwarts Howler For The American Voter

Source: Arianna Huffington Newsletter
By Arianna Huffington
15 Sept. 2004

Oh, how I wish this column were capable of special effects. If it were, the newspaper or computer screen you’re reading it on would suddenly morph into a Howler, one of those bright red envelopes in the Harry Potter books that, when opened, begin to shout at the recipient in the sender’s voice. In this case, my Greek-accented cry would fill the air:

WAKE UP! WAKE UP!! WAKE UP!!!

The reason for my distress is simple: I’ve just seen another round of polls showing that, by a hefty 23-point spread, voters think George W. Bush will make the country safer and more secure than John Kerry. Karl Rove’s VBD (Vote for Bush or Die) strategy is clearly working.

And I’m left Howlering:

SAFER AND MORE SECURE? IN WHAT UNIVERSE???

For the public to be so dead wrong on this central issue of the campaign, two things had to happen: The GOP had to relentlessly hammer home their lies, and the other side had to let them get away with it.

Last month, John Kerry said: “More than 30 years ago, I learned an important lesson. When you’re under attack, the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack.”

The good news is that once he turns his boat into this attack, he will absolutely never run out of ammunition. The facts that prove that George Bush’s prosecution of the War on Terror has been an unmitigated disaster are profuse and irrefutable.

But this Howler has to come in John Kerry’s voice — and the message has to be delivered not just now and then but pounded home, Rove-style, day after day, week after week, until it sinks in.

Kerry simply cannot, as some are advising, look at the poll numbers, cede national security to the other side, and hope to win by going after Bush on health care and jobs.

He needs to hit the president — again and again and again — right smack in the middle of his supposed strength: Bush’s “strong,” “steadfast, “unwavering,” “decisive” leadership in the War on Terror. This frontal assault on Bush’s terror strategy centers on all the ways this president has failed us. So, let me review them:

For starters, there is his disastrous decision to invade — for all intents and purposes unilaterally — Iraq, an operation Bush termed a “catastrophic success.” More like a catastrophic diversion — of troops and money and focus that would have been better spent, oh, I don’t know, going after the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11.

Right after those attacks, Bush said that capturing Osama bin Laden was “our number one priority.” But three years later, bin Laden is still on the loose and plotting to attack us again, a fact that Bush and Cheney keep trying to make us forget — first by turning him into He Who Must Not Be Named, and second by continuing to trot out the lies connecting Saddam Hussein to 9/11. Lies so thoroughly discredited that even loyal soldier Colin Powell felt compelled last Sunday to shoot them down.

Yet, hard though it is to believe, a Newsweek poll last week found that 42 percent of Americans still think Saddam was “directly involved in planning, financing or carrying out the terrorist attacks.”

I feel another Hogwarts Howler coming on: REPEAT AFTER ME: THERE WAS NO CONNECTION BETWEEN SADDAM AND 9/11. NONE! ZERO! ZIP! AAAAAH!

Bush’s lust for Iraq kept us from securing Afghanistan, most of which is now under the rule of barbaric warlords, with the Taliban and the country’s drug trade — a major source of funding for terrorist efforts worldwide — making a comeback.

What’s more, Bush’s Baghdad folly has allowed the terrorists to regroup. At his convention, the president had the gall to claim that “more than three-quarters of al-Qaida’s key members and associates have been detained or killed,” which makes it sound like the war on terror is all but won: “75 percent down; just a measly 25 percent to go!”

In truth, according to a study by the respected International Institute for Strategic Studies: “Al-Qaida has fully reconstituted and set its sights firmly on the USA.” The report also found that the war on Iraq had “helped al-Qaida recruit more members.”

Still feeling safer? Then let’s take a trip down nerve-racking memory lane, back to October 2001, when President Bush held a photo op at FBI headquarters and announced a list of America’s 22 Most Wanted Terrorists — a terrifying lineup he called “the first 22” in a long-term struggle, “leaders and key supporters … planners and strategists.” Three years later, just three of these Most Wanted have been captured or killed. The other 19 are still on the loose.

So is it really any surprise that the number of people killed and wounded in worldwide terrorist attacks is on the rise?

Bush has also failed to stem the spread of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and materials. Take North Korea and Iran. The president’s all-consuming focus on Iraq has allowed the other two spokes on the Axis of Evil to push forward with their nuclear programs. While we were spending billions looking for Saddam’s nonexistent WMD, Kim Jong Il was building more nukes and the mullahs in Tehran were racing to do the same.

As if that weren’t bad enough, Bush has dragged his feet on efforts to keep loose nukes in the former Soviet Union from falling into the wrong hands.

Still thinking Bush is the man to keep us safe and secure? Then consider just a few of the ways he has robbed our Homeland Security Peter to pay his foreign occupation Paul:

Our ports are still woefully unprotected and underfunded. Since 9/11, Bush has allocated just $441 million of the $7.5 billion the Coast Guard says it will cost to protect our ports from terrorist attack. And, obviously not having learned the lessons of Madrid, he’s earmarked just $100 million for rail security — about what we spend on eight typical hours in Iraq. The president has likewise shortchanged airport security: Only eight of America’s 440 airports have state-of-the-art baggage screening machines.

And how’s this for a kick in the teeth? The president’s cutbacks have actually left fewer police and first responders on the streets today than were there on 9/11. That’s right: Bush has responded to the worst attack on American soil by making us less prepared to deal with another one.

So let’s recap: Under George Bush, the guy who is going to keep us safer, Osama has gone free; al-Qaida has reloaded; terrorist attacks continue unabated; nukes keep on spreading; the Muslim world is ferociously united against us (and the rest of the world isn’t too crazy about us either); our ports, railways, roads and borders remain unsecured; our police, firefighters and first responders remain underequipped; and our armed forces have been stretched perilously thin.

I’m all for having the election be a referendum on which candidate will make the country safe and secure — but only after Kerry’s inner Howler has had his say.

Said Howler is on cinematic display in a powerful new documentary coming to a theater near you the day after the first — and only? — presidential debate. For me, the highlight of George Butler’s “Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry” is the story of Kerry’s courageous and inspiring efforts as a leader of the Vietnam veterans’ antiwar movement.

If Kerry can make the case against Bush’s tragic failures in Iraq and the War on Terror with half as much urgency and moral clarity as he did against Nixon’s failures in Vietnam, the American people will be able to enter the voting booth on Election Day with their eyes wide open.

Iraq outrage: Troops following orders from General Rove, against advice of military officers on ground

Source: Working For Change
By Molly Ivins
14 Sept. 2004

SARASOTA, Fla. -- Media watch alert: a curious double distortion in the media mirror, as the situation in Iraq unravels before our eyes. Iraq gets less media play for two reasons -- one an old media fault, and the other political.
As the story gets worse, it also becomes more familiar. We've heard it before, quite a few times, and consequently it doesn't get as much play. "Seven Marines Killed" or "Scores Dead After Violence Spreads in Iraq" would have been HUGE stories a year ago. Now they're just another bad day in Iraq, nothin' new here, no news. Back to the hurricane (which is also becoming unpleasantly old news).

The other factor is the Bush team's decision to drop this misbegotten war down the memory hole. Two parts at play here. The first is Teddy Roosevelt's splendid observation that the presidency is a bully pulpit. It is the single most useful public relations position in the world. When the president calls a press conference to talk about whatever he wants, all hands report for duty. And if the president doesn't mention a certain subject, nor does the veep, nor the secretaries of defense, state, etc., the media have to dig it up on their own, a responsibility at which we have often failed and are steadily getting worse.

The second part is that John Kerry is not in a particularly good position to bring up the subject himself. Through some truly adroit political maneuvering (I am tempted but resolutely resist use of the word genius), every time Kerry opens his mouth about Iraq these days, the Bush camp bursts into a loud, well-trained chorus of "He's changing his position again. Yoo-hoo, flip-flop!"

One way to deal with that would be for Kerry to hold a press conference and announce he is, finally, at long last, actually changing his mind -- but the political way is to step up his opposition without ever admitting he supported this misbegotten mess. Hell, if George W. Bush can't think of a single mistake he's made (not to mention still claiming he got into the Texas Air National Guard all by himself), why should Kerry admit one?

Meanwhile, back in reality, incredibly enough, the Bush team continues to make things in Iraq worse!

Ignoring the First Rule of Holes (when in one, quit digging), the geniuses in the White House are actually busy deepening their fiasco. According to The Washington Post, it was the White House that decided, against the advice of military commanders on the ground, to order the troops into Fallujah after four American construction workers were killed and their bodies mutilated.

I'm sure Gen. Rove decided we couldn't afford to look weak in the face of such provocation given the poll numbers at the time. Worse, it was the tactical geniuses at the White House who then decided, again against the advice of the military commanders on the ground, to withdraw the troops from Fallujah. Come on, people, if I hear one more person accusing those of us who oppose this war of having "Vietnam flashbacks," I'm going to urp. When will they ever learn?

Of course Bush is entitled to ask Kerry, "So what would you do about the disaster I've created?" Trouble is, the various initiatives and proposals Kerry has come up in the course of the making of this quagmire (known to Republicans as "flip-flops" and "switching positions") would have worked, but those times are gone, wasted by our "steadfast" commander in chief who can't see anything clearly.

There was a time when it would have helped to have more troops on the ground -- we could have stopped the looting and actually imposed order. That would have meant following Army Chief of Staff Gen. Erik Shinseki's advice, instead of the military geniuses in the White House. There was a time when we could have seriously gone after more international support and gotten our allies to help pay for this costly botch. But that would have meant admitting our allies had been right about too many things, and the White House was too busy smirking, bowing and crowing to improve its diplomacy after the war one iota over the offensive, unnecessary alienation of allies it worked so hard on before the war.

There was a time when we could have been more sensitive toward the Iraqis themselves -- for example, by not moving our headquarters into Saddam Hussein's palace or shutting down their newspaper -- to them what democracy is all about -- or keeping Abu Ghraib open.

Speaking of Abu Ghraib, what happened there is not the Marshall Plan. Nor is giving billions of dollars to Halliburton and all the jobs to non-Iraqis a Marshall Plan. The Bushies have slowly, one-by-one, destroyed every chance we had to make this occupation work. And then they blame Kerry for not coming up with a plan.

Now we have Dick Cheney warning us that if we don't vote for Bush, we'll all die. Good thing they're not making national security a political issue! Read more in the Molly Ivins archive.

Molly Ivins is the former editor of the liberal monthly The Texas Observer. She is the bestselling author of several books including Who Let the Dogs In?

It's Time to Cream Him, John

Source: BuzzFlash
13 Sept. 2004

If you believe that defeating George W. Bush and the men who control him is just a matter of politics, this editorial is not for you.

This is not a matter to be left to pollsters and Democratic consultants who specialize in developing vague so-called "centrist" strategies that lead to their true calling: writing concession speeches.

This is an editorial about pulling the fire alarm to save our democracy, our Constitution, our reputation in the community of nations, and freedom itself.

BuzzFlash was founded in May of 2000 because, like many Patriots, we were tired of one party playing by the rules of the thug and the other party playing by Robert's Rules of Order. Moreover, the Democrats still seem to think you can beat the Republicans playing a game of defense.

It's like the Corleone Family versus the Quakers, except the Quakers don't rely heavily on corporate support.

We wrote in an editorial in the spring of this year that Kerry needed to define George W. Bush or be defined. Apparently, they weren't listening to us over at Kerry headquarters. They were shelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars to Democratic consultants who make their careers off of losing campaigns by urging a "middle of the road" course. Meanwhile, the Swift Boat Liars slithered out of the sewer system and through the back door.

We have hesitated to write this editorial because John F. Kerry is truly a decent and honorable man. He is a true leader. He has recently taken some strong shots at Bush, which the mainstream press tends to bury in their coverage. Edwards has also been partially unleashed.

But that is not enough. Kerry and Edwards are fighting for democracy against the same people who tried to frame a President of the United States, through a medieval witch hunt, by hijacking the sacred process of our "justice" system. Through the intervention of Cheney's longtime friend, Antonin Scalia, they stole an election from the American people. They lie, cheat and steal.

If they lose this election, and Kerry has backbone, the Bush/Cheney Barbary Pirates will leave the White House and within a year or two end up in the big house up the river: the Federal Penitentiary.

This is not business as usual. This is not just politics. John Kerry is running against a political criminal enterprise. If that statement shocks you, than you don't understand the dire straits that we are in, not even remotely.

Since the Republican Party was taken over by the Radical Right Wing -- beginning with the Nixon administration (in which Rumsfeld and Cheney began their ascent -- and remember that Cheney is our President for International Affairs, with Karl Rove his aide de camp for domestic affairs) -- the GOP has run campaigns and the country with three basic tools: demagoguery, the creation of manufactured images of leadership, and the criminal abuse of our justice department and legislative process. If we have to detail each of these abuses to convince you that they are accurate characterizations, then you are not a regular BuzzFlash reader.

In modern day politics, form is content. Just look at Bush. Here is a guy who utters the most inane, contradictory pronouncements, a man of such feeble talent that he would be lucky to be bagging groceries were his name not Bush, and the GOP strategists and image makers have managed to wage this election on his image as a "wartime leader."

Say what?

It is true that Kerry and Edwards are not just running against the GOP mob family. To be fair, they are also running against a mainstream press that buries the truth about Bush being AWOL and grounded as a pilot on the inside pages, while splashing the delirious lies of men who didn't even serve on Kerry's boat on the front page.

Bush is like one of those inflatable dolls that bursts open several times a day and deflates. The job of the corporate press -- per daily message points provided by the Karl Rove crew -- is to patch him up and re-inflate him everyday into Popeye by the next morning.

In an age of headline news, absent the substance, there appears to be no historical memory beyond the latest six-hour news cycle.

But the Kerry campaign should have factored all this into their game plan.

The good news is that it is not too late. Kerry is within striking distance -- especially in the crucial battleground electoral states. In fact, some polls show him currently ahead in likely electoral votes.

But he won't win by adopting a de facto air that Bush is somehow a legitimate leader, or that Iraq was a reasonable war. You can't win by subliminally reinforcing the facade that is created by your opposition.

The only way to win against the right wing thugs who stole the American government is to cream them, rip off their masks and put them on the defensive through Election Day.

Then, after you win, put them in the hands of the Department of Justice.

It won't be long before they are behind bars.

That is the best example that they can set to their followers, because it is the reality of what they are up to.

John Kerry, your Swift Boat heroism was real. Your subsequent eloquent battle to end the Vietnam War was sincere. But that is more than 30 years ago.

We need you to show the same kind of heroism and leadership today. It's a different kind of enemy that you are fighting, but their danger to democracy is proven and real.

Rip off their masks or lose the election.

It's nice to know that some of the Clinton warriors have joined your team, including BuzzFlash fan Paul Begala.

But, remember this. In this age of television news: form is content. Bush gets off being a leader when he is a bungling failure, who ruins the nation, not runs it. You are a natural leader for the times, but need to project that in a television age. Dramatic gestures count.

Modern politics is like a sporting event. You don't win playing defense -- and image, unfortunately, trumps content.

Now is the time to kick him in the balls and win.

If that sounds too nasty, your opponent wouldn't have it any other way, John.

That is HIS politics.

Remember, this is not just an election that you and John Edwards win or lose against Cheney and Bush.

This is an election that will determine, perhaps, whether the American democracy founded in 1776 continues to exist.

We all have a stake in the outcome.

Cheney Warns Vote for Bush or Die

Source: The Daily Mis-Lead
10 Sept. 2004

Campaigning in Iowa on Tuesday, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that, if John Kerry was elected, America would be hit by adevastating terrorist attack. Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the rightchoice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will bedevastating from the standpoint of the United States."[1]

Yesterday, Cheney - in a self-described effort to "clean up" the controversy over his remarks in Iowa - told the CincinnatiEnquirer, "I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack."[2]

As Cheney's original statement makes clear, the Republicans have consciously adopted a strategy of using Americans' justifiable fearof a future terrorist attack as a political tool. For all the details, read the cover article, "Vote for Bush or Die," in thisweek's edition of The Nation at http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=54552 .[3]

Sources:
1. "Cheney Warns of Terror Risk if Kerry Wins," New York Times, 9/08/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=54553.
2. "Cheney clarifies remark about terror threat if Kerry is elected," CNN, 9/10/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=54554.
3. "Vote for Bush or Die," The Nation, 9/27/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1291765&l=54555.

How Many Deaths Will It Take?

Source: New York Times
By BOB HERBERT
10 Sept. 2004

t was Vietnam all over again - the heartbreaking head shots captioned with good old American names:

Jose Casanova, Donald J. Cline Jr., Sheldon R. Hawk Eagle, Alyssa R. Peterson.

Eventually there'll be a fine memorial to honor the young Americans whose lives were sacrificed for no good reason in Iraq. Yesterday, under the headline "The Roster of the Dead," The New York Times ran photos of the first thousand or so who were killed.

They were sent off by a president who ran and hid when he was a young man and his country was at war. They fought bravely and died honorably. But as in Vietnam, no amount of valor or heroism can conceal the fact that they were sent off under false pretenses to fight a war that is unwinnable.

How many thousands more will have to die before we acknowledge that President Bush's obsession with Iraq and Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for the United States?

Joshua T. Byers, Matthew G. Milczark, Harvey E. Parkerson 3rd, Ivory L. Phipps.

Fewer and fewer Americans believe the war in Iraq is worth the human treasure we are losing and the staggering amounts of money it is costing. But no one can find a way out of this tragic mess, which is why that dreaded word from the Vietnam era - quagmire - has been resurrected. Most Washington insiders agree with Senator John McCain, who said he believes the U.S. will be involved militarily in Iraq for 10 or 20 more years.

To what end? You can wave goodbye to the naïve idea that democracy would take root in Iraq and then spread like the flowers of spring throughout the Middle East. That was never going to happen. So what are we there for, other than to establish a permanent military stronghold in the region and control the flow of Iraqi oil?

The insurgency in Iraq will never end as long as the U.S. is occupying the country. And our Iraqi "allies" will never fight their Iraqi brethren with the kind of intensity the U.S. would like, any more than the South Vietnamese would fight their fellow Vietnamese with the fury and effectiveness demanded by the hawks in the Johnson administration.

The Iraqi insurgents - whether one agrees with them or not - believe they are fighting for their homeland, their religion and their families. The Americans are not at all clear what they're fighting for. Saddam is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. The link between Saddam and the atrocities of Sept. 11 was always specious and has been proven so.

At some point, as in Vietnam, the American public will balk at the continued carnage, and this tragic misadventure will become politically unsustainable. Meanwhile, the death toll mounts.

Elia P. Fontecchio, Raheen Tyson Heighter, Sharon T. Swartworth, Ruben Valdez Jr.

One of the reasons the American effort in Iraq is unsustainable is that the American people know very little about the Iraqi people and their culture, and in most cases couldn't care less. The war in Iraq was sold as a response to Sept. 11. As it slowly dawns on a majority of Americans that the link was bogus, and that there is no benefit to the U.S. from this war, only endless grief, the political support will all but vanish.

(This could take awhile. In a poll done for Newsweek magazine this week, 42 percent of the respondents continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.)

We've put our troops in Iraq in an impossible situation. If you are not permitted to win a war, eventually you will lose it. In Vietnam, for a variety of reasons, the U.S. never waged total war, although the enemy did. After several years and more than 58,000 deaths, we quit.

We won't - and shouldn't - wage total war in Iraq, either. But to the insurgents, the Americans epitomize evil. We're the crazed foreigners who invaded their country and killed innocent Iraqi civilians, including women and children, by the thousands. We call that collateral damage. They call it murder. For them, this is total war.

President Bush never prepared the nation for the prolonged violence of this war. He still hasn't spoken candidly about it. If he has an idea for hauling us out of this quagmire, he hasn't bothered to reveal it.

The troops who are fighting and dying deserve better.

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com

Citizen Letter to the NYC Mayor

By Chris Habib
09 Sept. 2004

Mr. Mayor, how you can, with clear conscience brand Americans walking or riding the streets of New York-- exercising their rights to demonstrate, assemble and redress grievances, "terrorists" is unconscionable. I hold you and Ray Kelly personally responsible for acts of terror against the citizens of and visitors to New York. You have disappeared nearly 2,000 individuals in the past week solely as political posturing. You have held nearly all of them for 20-22 hours and most for 40-60 hours without charges, without access to lawyers, in subhuman conditions and then sent Kelly to lie to the media, stating that most were cleared from the system within 90 minutes.

Perhaps this 90 minute figure holds true of drug dealers, thieves, hookers and rapists, but it is inapplicable to those simply acting to peacefully and lawfully exercise their constitutionally afforded rights. Then when faced with a writ of habeas corpus, demanding that you produce those who you had illegally held for political gain, you were found in contempt of court for ignoring the order. You ignored it until you were fined. You were fined $1,000 for each body you failed to produce. Your taxpayers were fined $1,000 for each body you failed to produce. Your voters were fined for your unlawful arrests and failure to comply with court orders. You directly disobey the law and we are "terrorists?"

We, Mr. Mayor, will gladly see you and Ray Kelly in court. While we the tax-payers are paying for your crimes, we will gladly compound these costsin the class action lawsuits we are bringing against you.

If the NYPD wonders why they won't have much more than a cost of livingincrease (if even that) in their contract when the city is finished payingfines and settlements, they should look no further than the mayor, thepolice commissioner and the NYPD brass. The NYPD should look no further thantheir own failure to question the legitimacy of that which they were beingasked to do over the course of the past week. They should look no furtherthan their participation in activities tantamount to those exploited asrationales for having invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Perhaps, Mr. Mayor, it'stime New York be occupied by some more democratic force to liberate us fromthose regimes which violate our civil and human rights.

You swept patriotic Americans, participating in the brand of democracy thatliberated this country from tyrannical colonial rule and framed ourconstitution, into orange freedom-fencing, white flexi-cuffs and chainlinkand razorwire pens, reminiscent of those erected in Guantanamo Bay Cuba, buthardly as humane. For your pens were erected in the fire-ravaged shell of adepot on a pier. Your pens were possibly capped in asbestos and rested onfloors saturated with engine degreaser, diesel, oil, antifreeze, sodiumlaurel sulfate and a cornucopia of assorted other chemical agents common tomaintenance garages. Since you failed to provide the necessary benches toaccommodate the numbers of Americans that your pens were intended to hold,it can be assumed that you intended that those detained sit and lay on thetoxic floor and endure the chemical burns, rashes and respiratory damagethat your subtle brand of chemical warfare ravaged on so many.

When charges were finally assigned to those detained, they were whollyfabricated. You must know that you need evidence to bring charges againstsomeone. You must be aware that it is your responsibility to prove guilt.Yet, still, your police department participated in the massive authoring ofan incredible work of fiction, taking the form of thousands of vignettes.You authored a volume of haiku for the death of democracy.

On Sunday morning, I set out on what seemed it would be an incredible bikeride with a couple hundred other riders. We obeyed traffic laws. We wereoccasionally ushered through traffic by smiling NYPD cadets. We smiled,giggled, enjoyed our city and the company of one another while participatingin an activity that is not only legal, but supportive of a sustainableenvironment. We burned no fuel. We injured no one. We damaged nothing.Without exception, passersby cheered us on. Then, like an August storm, adeluge of unmarked scooters carrying plainclothes detectives descended uponus. Never did they once identify themselves as police officers.

Never did they issue a single command. What they did do, however, was recklessly swerve through a group of peaceful cyclists. They leaned into us with their elbows, skidded their scooters in front of us (seemingly desirous of acollisions which we successfully avoided), and rammed our legs and wheelswith their motor vehicles. They terrorized us. Through the use of excessiveforce and intimidation they corralled us, tackled us, roughed a few of us upand fenced us in. When uniformed officers arrived, these scooter detectivesleft the scene of a mass arrest that they had instigated to huddle togetheraround the corner at Broadway and 36th street and high-five one anotherwhile consuming bottled water and readjusting the bandanas wrapping theirheads.

A few of us got away and remained at the scene of this state sponsoredterror, watching, filming and photographing in utter disbelief of what wouldcome to be the standard in NYPD demonstration suppression tactics over thenext few days.

Mr. Mayor, you have violated my rights and the rights of my peers. Mr.Mayor, you have supported those who have participated in terror. Mr. Mayor,you have financed this state sponsored terror. Mr. Mayor, you have consentedto the state sponsored violation of civil and human rights. Mr. Mayor, youhave exposed political prisoners to chemical warfare. Mr. Mayor, you havesupported the exploitation of NYPD street officers to affect your politicalgain. Mr. Mayor, you, Ray Kelly and the NYPD brass are the only terroristsin this city, and Mr. Mayor, we will hunt you each down and see that justiceis done the only way it seems to matter, by picking your pockets andslashing your budgets in the courts. Then, Mr. Mayor, we'll take to thepolls and erase you and your ilk from our administration.

Whose streets? Our streets.