Reconstructing Harriet

Casey:

Is there something worse than overturning Roe that Meirs is capable of? All the conservative theatrics around her nebulous stance on Roe makes me highly suspicious in a all-over paranoiac kind of way...

Check out today's Five Minutes

THEOCRACY WATCH!!

October 18, 2005
Op-Ed Contributor
Voting 'Yes' to Chaos
By HATEM MUKHLIS

Baghdad

THE usually bustling streets of this city looked sad and empty on Saturday, other than the occasional herd of people on their way to the voting stations. The children - I never knew there were so many youngsters in Baghdad - oblivious to the event of the day, took to the streets, affirming their newly found democracy by playing soccer.

I knew for sure, alas, that this constitution would not unify the country. My mother once told me - I was 10 at the time - that her father, one of the founders of modern Iraq, had lamented how important, yet impossible, it was to even dream about unifying the national Iraqi attire, let alone our country's hearts.

It is extremely unfortunate that so many people were led to believe that the Iraqi constitution would be a panacea. This document, which early returns indicate is likely to be approved by voters, is nothing more or less than a time bomb.

Why have so many Sunnis so adamantly opposed it? The answer is easy: it would likely divide Iraq into as many as 18 small feuding states. Can anyone imagine every state in the American union having diplomatic representation in foreign missions?

It is a tacit understanding in every civilized state that the whole country joins together to defend itself from an outside threat. But not under this Iraqi constitution; the state Parliaments would probably have to approve. In case after case, provincial regulations would overrule federal laws when there is a dispute. The Iraqi Army would not even have the right to enter a state without the approval of that state's Parliament.

Anyone who thinks that such a constitution would calm the insurgency has probably been spending more time than he should have reading about Alice in Wonderland. I believe that should the constitution pass, the next few weeks will see an escalation of the unnecessary violence that has ripped my country apart. Unnecessary, because the ordinary citizen has no political agenda, and has found himself amid a war he neither understands nor cares about - a war waged by foreigners who could not care less about Iraq or Iraqis. All he seeks is the most basic necessities of life: electricity, security, a job, food, health care, clean water and working sewers.

- more -

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/18/opinion/18mukhlis.html

Chuck in Houston, on and off topic:

On topic, and addressing a point on the prior thread about President Bush supposedly not caring about what people think, and thereby coming accross as a leader with convictions, well, how can I put this, I think that is a great, big, lie. I think he is extremely successful at being many things to many people because he refuses to be pinned down on any great issues. He has three tricks he uses to achieve this: (1) speak in almost unintelligible English, (2) use of "code," which works into the first point, and (3) a "what, me worry?" ability to blantanly contradict himself and punish or bully anyone with the temerity to point out the contractictions. I've probably missed some. Casey's post is an exception proving this rule: it's finally catching up with him and some folks that actually have some organized power in this country are starting to call him out.

And, quasi-on-topic by way of segue, somebody posted this link to John Conyers -- a person I am really beginning to admire:

http://www.conyersblog.us/default.htm

He again is attempting to use the tiny bit of leverage Democratcs have in the halls of power to force the administrations hand on an extremely relevant and timely issue. For a broader context on the nexus between power and information in American with respect to our foreign policy, I highly recommend this Juan Cole article. Much of what he has to say resonates very much with my personal experience in other areas:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101705D.shtml

Finally, and pretty much off-topic, but following from the Cole interview in a sense, I wanted to post my disagreement with those on the prior thread that say supporting the IWR in the fall of 2002 was wrong and should effectively disqualify those Democratic Senators that voted for it from leadership positions, and, I suppose, by extension, anyone that agreed with them at the time. Supporting the IWR absolutely, positively, does not mean supporting the invasion of Iraq, and anyone that equates the two is doing a great job letting this administration off the hook and is doing a great job carrying water for George W. Bush and his team. The IWR gave POTUS the leverage, together with our closest and strongest international allies, to re-start the UN arms inspection program. That was an extremely positive and important development for the national security of the US and many other nations. What George W. Bush as POTUS did that was morally and strategically a grave error was to invade Iraq while the inspection were still taking place, thereby: (1) making it impossible to ascertain what if any WMD programs were still extant in Iraq, (2) guaranteeing the emnity of the world community to the US (and in fact welcoming it in a perverse sop to US chauvinism), (3) creating another failed-state haven for fanatical Islamic networks (in place of a dysfunctional and tyrannical police state, admittedly), and (4) sacrificing tens of thousands of lives for no easily discernable purpose, and indeed on false pretenses. And that is a very short list. The Senate's passage of the IWR was NOT responsible for that error. That error is the sole province of POTUS.

For those that criticize IWR stricktly on the basis of the War Powers part of the Constitution, I would tend to agree on principle. But that is a somewhat different issue of a systemic nature. Of all the military actions we've been involved in over the past 100 years, only two, I believe, were properly conducted through a Declaration of War passed by Congress: WWI and WWII. We are all guilty of letting this important check and balance atrophy.

Chuck in Houston

I asked this question here last week and here is my answer. How could Libby be involved with the Plame matter without Cheney having at least some involvment? Cheney now may be the target of an indictment based upon the testimony of a secret witness, Deep Throat II.

"Cheney and Libby spend hours together in the course of a day, which causes sources who know both men very well to assert that any attempts to discredit Wilson would almost certainly have been known to the vice president.

"Scooter wouldn't be freelancing on this without Cheney's knowledge," a source told the Daily News. "It was probably some off-the-cuff thing: 'This guy [Wilson] could be a problem.'"

The News reported in July that Libby was "totally obsessed with Wilson."

Whether that obsession amounts to criminal misconduct will be decided by Fitzgerald - but if Libby is indicted or implicated in wrongdoing, Cheney's reputation will suffer as well."

Chuck in Houston for Ira on Libby/Cheney-Rove/Bush:

Based on my little slice of life experience as to how things work in larger organizations, I am absolutely sure that Libby would not undertake such an endeavor without the knowledge and support of Cheney and that likewise Rove would not without the knowlege and support of Bush. That may be difficult to prove under our rules of jurisprudence, but to me, it defies all laws of logic and human nature and the nature of power to believe otherwise.

Chuck in Houston

Breaking News on MSNBC.com

Miers backed anti-abortion amendment
In 1989, nominee endorsed ban on procedure, except in life-or-death cases

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

“If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature,” asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked “yes” to that question, and all of the group’s questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep “pro-abortion” people off city health boards and commissions.

The survey was part of the material sent to the Senate with Miers’ Supreme Court questionnaire, according to two sources, one working with the White House and the other with the Senate, speaking on condition on anonymity.

The abortion issue hangs over Miers’ nomination much as it did over the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this year. The situations are different, however — Roberts replaced the late William Rehnquist, who voted to overturn the 1973 abortion ruling. Miers would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who has voted to uphold it.

White House: Response ‘a political position’
“A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process.” said Jim Dyke, a White House spokesman.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9737137/

Very interesting blog in WaPo via kos poster annaalyn:

"The right-wingnuts are at it again---ranting about the "MSM" and all the terrible things it does to wreck poor George W. and the wonderful Iraq war. They're all responding to Emily Messner's entertaining tirade against their moronic claims of bias. Come on, fellow libs! Let's bombard the blog with comments in support of Emily's anti-right-wing-nutjob stance. I'm looking around now for good examples to use to put in the comments (positive Iraq stories, examples of blatant bias toward the right)....Go to blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate to jump into the fray."

"I am so sick of their whining about bias. It's just like the Christian Right complaining that they're such an oppressed minority. Let's give the wingnuts a good fight on this one!"

Here's the WaPo link:
http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/thedebate/2005/10/the_myth_of_the.html#more

This info coming out on Miers abortion stance is no suprise, it is part of the "marketing plan" that IS her nomination.

The WH knows she is a weak candidate, BUT with her they get to lovingly send a relatively unknown out, all the while systematically leaking her stance on the base's two favorite subjects for fierce debate all over again... abortion and her faith (aka right wing extremist christian evangelical).

It's a setup, I tell ya. A setup.

Scorched earth campaign in runup to '06. Battle lines being drawn right here and now.

SCOTUS POCUS

The only reason miers and roberts are there is to protect bush from impeachment today and rig elections for the bush jrs they KNOW can't win fair elections either

... and in blew Christy like a wayward Southern breeze ...

Posted by: monkey at October 18, 2005 11:07 AM

Monkey,

I think that's part of their new unveiling to try to bring the right-winged nuts back to the fold.

Guess Bush's word wasn't good enough for them so they tried to sneak it by.

Fe,
Your concerns are well founded. Much of Miers' litigation work has been to assist corporations in divesting themselves of unions or diminishing the power of unions. She is not a champion of the environment, working on several occasion to assist corporate interests in eroding invironmental protections in order to maximize profits. She is a corporate lawyer, a corporate person. In short, the little guy has no place in the thinking of Harriet Miers, except perhaps when it hits very close to home. That, at least, is my take on it.

With regard to RvW, I can't imagine that she would really vote to unleash all those babies onto the welfare rolls. The economic impact would be huge; I still believe that real conservatives just won't go for a complete overturn of RvW. They don't want the tax hikes.

Anyway, I think there ARE worse things than revamping RvW.

Amy:

Meirs could very well be the nominee of the corporate end of the triad that holds Bush up. (Christian evangelicals + Corporate oligarchs + Defense hawks).

There is a long and fascinating oped in the Asia Times that is worth reading about how the psychological framework that has been created around / through the actions of the Bush administration. [Link courtesy of kos poster potownman]

US: Patriotic pride and fear
By Ritt Goldstein

Asia Times, Jul 8, 2004

While some critics of US President George W Bush have charged that his administration is pursuing policies of madness, such a charge is clinically incorrect, but it may convey an extraordinarily disturbing reality. Both an eminent psychologist and a noted political scientist perceive a particularly virulent social pathogen as the basis for much of the present global strife, with Washington at the center of the epidemic.

"It certainly seems that the world is going mad," Canadian psychologist Dr Daniel Burston told Asia Times Online, quickly noting that an increasing retreat into "social phantasy systems" would be more accurate. Burston - whose work has been acclaimed in the mainstream media - noted that famed social psychologist Erich Fromm had written on "socially patterned defects" that enabled large groups of people to adjust themselves comfortably to a system that, humanly speaking, is "fundamentally at odds with our basic existential and human needs". Burston observed that this resulted in "deficiencies, or traits, or attitudes which don't generate internal conflict when, in fact, they should".
~snip~

The Iraq war's critics have long charged that numerous and severe shortcomings in the Bush administration's actions were simply met with the unending rationalization of what many see as blatant and tragic errors. Two often-cited examples of this are the administration's claims regarding Iraq's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq's alleged link to the attacks of September 11, 2001.

"The best way to tie these things together might be through what Fromm calls 'irrational authority'", said Burston, adding that "people have a need to believe". He continued, observing that a majority of Americans mistakenly believing Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11 can be seen as "an example of people succumbing to the blandishments, or the temptations of belief", believing in the kind of authority "which routinely resorts to violence, deception and secrecy to achieve its ends", termed irrational authority. And he noted how such misconceptions are aided.

"Crowds can be persuaded through specific formulas that involve frequent repetitions, in an authoritative tone, by someone who is considered authoritative. And for many people, this works - it just works," Burston revealed. Paralleling that, in an autumn 2003 interview with this journalist, Ray McGovern - a former 27-year Central Intelligence Agency analyst who had regularly briefed the White House - had similarly said that Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels "was good, and his dictum about say it five times and people will believe it, turns out, unfortunately, to be true".

On June 24, Reuters reported that former US vice president Al Gore charged that "very soon after [September 11], President Bush made a decision to start mentioning Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein in the same breath in a cynical mantra designed to fuse them together as one in the public's mind." Gore was also reported as charging that the administration worked "with a network of 'rapid response' digital brownshirts" (brownshirts were German political thugs of the Adolf Hitler era) to pressure "reporters and their editors" into refraining from critical news coverage.

Though Burston judges that many members of the Bush administration are sincere in their pursuit of "a global climate that's more conducive to democracy ... to diminish terrorism", he notes that the means the administration has employed brought "consequences that are very often the reverse of what they intended". But he discussed how noted psychologist R D Laing's theory of "social phantasy systems" could explain this.

Citing his book on Laing's work, The Crucible of Experience, Burston highlighted that Laing believed most people develop a form of "pseudo-sanity", doing so as a function of the emotional imperative of adapting to "pseudo-realities". The upshot is that they live within a "social phantasy system" of varying degrees.

The described result for the individual is a proportionate loss of the ability to think critically, as well as limited ability to consider anyone or anything outside one's particular group, especially in a positive light.

"People who are deeply embedded within social-phantasy systems like these function effectively within the framework of those groups. But their sense of reality regarding the world outside of their reference group is profoundly impoverished as a consequence," Burston outlined. "That makes them act in ways which - from an outsiders perspective - look insane."

Notably, the unpleasant reality of a substantive social-phantasy system would provide explanation for the growing disparity between the way the US views itself and the way others view it. This might also explain the number of failed policies increasingly impacting the United States.

Beyond this, "the concepts of socially patterned defects" (Fromm) and of "social-phantasy systems" (Laing) make abundantly good sense of "normal" political behavior - both in the US and abroad - "where people routinely support leaders, parties or other political entities whose policies run directly contrary to their individual and collective self-interest", said Burston, who saw certain similarities between the present period and the 1930s.
~snip~

read more here...
http://atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FG08Aa01.html

This just came to my inbox from Sojourners, the REAL Christian group:

Dear Amy,
Just weeks after Hurricane Katrina exposed the crisis of poverty in America, Congress will debate as early as WEDNESDAY how much money should be cut from the budgets of health care, nutrition assistance, and other vital services for poor and working families. That's right, they will cut funds - and the question is by how much. Perhaps equally astonishing, they will decide how much - up to $70 billion - they will cut taxes for the richest people in America.

In Washington, this may be business as usual, but as people of faith, we believe that budgets are moral documents, and so far this budget is morally bankrupt.

We have a short amount of time to make a big difference, and we need your voice now!

1) Call Congress now. Tell them to get their priorities straight!

(800) 426-8073 (Toll-free courtesy of American Friends Service Committee)

"Speak up for those who cannot speak." - Proverbs 31:8

Ask to speak to one of the senators from your state. When the senator's phone is answered, say politely:

"My name is _____, and I live in [your town/city]. [AS A PERSON OF FAITH] I would like Senator [name] to oppose budget cuts to Medicaid, Food Stamps, and other vital services, and to oppose more tax cuts for the very rich. Needs of poor families should be a moral priority at this time, not tax cuts for the wealthy.”

After you're done, please call your other senator, followed by your representative.*

2) Tell 10 friends now!

The success of this call-in day will depend on how many people call their senators and members of Congress. Congress does listen to what their constituents think, so after you call, please tell your friends, family, pastor - anyone who shares your concern for restoring just budget priorities - about this call-in day!**

»Click here to tell your friends about today's call-in day:

http://go.sojo.net/sojourners/join-forward.html?domain=sojourners&r=r7A0qoS1kXBl&

Many in Congress claim that Hurricane Katrina has driven congressional spending and budgets out of control, and that sweeping cuts to vital social services are justified because of these increases. This claim couldn't be further from the truth.

Fiction : Government spending is dangerously high.

Fact: Even with new Katrina funds, federal spending as a percentage of the economy is below the 30-year average. Arguments like these are driven by an ideological determination to shrink government, not reality.

Fiction : Deficits are spinning out of control because of reckless spending and new Katrina relief.

Fact : The root of the problem of skyrocketing deficits is new tax cuts for the very wealthy, not new spending. For the past three years, tax revenues as a percentage of the economy are at a 30-year low. Nevertheless, many in Congress will stop at nothing to enact new tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.

Between now and 2010, the cost of the Bush tax cuts (if extended) will total $1.7 trillion. Katrina relief - even when you amount interest costs, is projected at $240 billion - less than 15% of what the tax cuts will cost.

And yet there is momentum behind a plan this year to add an additional $70 billion in new tax cuts - mostly for the very wealthy. Simply put, this plan is out of touch with our values.

For more information on how the budget works, what's at stake, and how to get more deeply involved, please click here.

Peace,
The Sojourners and Call to Renewal Organizing Team

REMEMER FOLKS, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN ORGANIZATION, NOT A DEM OR REPUB ORGANIZATION. THESE ARE PEOPLE OF FAITH WHO ARE OUTRAGED ABOUT THIS MONEY GRAB OF THE SUPER-RICH. PLEASE HELP.

... and in blew Christy like a wayward Southern breeze ...

Posted by: monkey at October 18, 2005 11:33 AM

Im not really here, this message does not really exist.

Wayward. Haha.

Perhaps

Large Marge at-large...

Fixing America's image in the Muslim world
Karen Hughes talks about her trip to three Arab countries, the CIA leak investigation and the Harriet Miers nomination in an exclusive interview

Today show
Updated: 9:35 a.m. ET Oct. 18, 2005

Karen Hughes has recently taken office as Undersecretary for Public Diplomacy, a job aimed at trying to improve America’s relations with the Arab world. In a wide ranging interview at the State Department, the “Today” show’s Katie Couric started out by asking about the chilly reception Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers has received.

Karen Hughes: Well, I can't speak for others, so I have to say for myself, I'm very disappointed because I know Harriet well. She is extraordinarily intelligent. She has a vast array of life experiences. She's just an exceptional person. She's one of the finest people I know.

Katie Couric: Do you think she'll be confirmed?

Hughes: I do think she'll be confirmed.

Couric: Let me ask you, I know you're not at liberty to talk about the investigation into the CIA leaks, but clearly with Karl Rove testifying before the grand jury, and Scooter Libby as well, how concerned is the White House about the possibility of indictments?

Hughes: Well, as you know, it's an ongoing investigation. And so, really it's something that we were asked not to discuss. But, it's not something that's affecting — I don't think — the daily business of the White House. And, it's business as usual in terms of conducting the nation's business.

Couric: Let me ask you about the vote on the Iraqi constitution, if I could. Over 10 million Iraqis cast ballots. I guess in mid-week we'll know if the constitution passed. Do you think it's a boom for democracy whether it does or not by the very fact that so many people came out to vote?

Hughes: Absolutely, because look at what happened this time. We had greater participation than they'd ever had, including higher numbers of Iraqis going to vote than voted in January.

Couric: Having said that though, while things seem to be progressing politically, as you well know the violence seems to get worse and worse. September was the bloodiest month in a year — 1,967 U.S. service men and women killed so far. And 55 percent of Americans now say that the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. How can you convince the American people, Madam Secretary, that the U.S. needs to stay the course under these circumstances?

Hughes: Well, I think Americans look at it the same way as people across the world look at it. No one likes war. War is very hard. We have a group of insurgents and terrorists who are trying to just indiscriminately kill people, their fellow Muslims, to prevent the democratic process from taking hold.

Hughes is now at the center of trying to fix America’s image in the Muslim world, having recently visited three Arab countries to hear their views in person.

Couric: What do you think is the most important thing you heard on your listening tour?

Hughes: I think one of the things that struck me the most was how concerned people in those countries are about what Americans think of them. We tend to focus on what people in other countries think about America. I had one woman in Egypt tell me, “I worry that you all think we're all terrorists." I said, "Of course we don't think you're all terrorists." In fact, you know, we've gone out of our way to try to communicate. But, that's a hard message to convey. Especially when you have opponents in the terrorists who are trying to cloak what they do in the veil of religion.

Couric: This ideology is being promoted by institutions like Al-Jazeera, the 24-hour Arabic news channel. Even Hezbollah has [a] cable network at this point. How do you offset what many Arabs are hearing from those sources with an alternative point of view that really has any credibility?

Hughes: Well, it's very difficult and the media environment today is completely different than what we faced in the Cold War. In the Middle East there's an explosion of news of all kinds in a very crowded media environment, so it's hard. We're dealing with some very inflammatory media. In the case of Al-Jazeera we've had to talk with them about what we think is less than objective reporting, in some cases, of sort of promoting the insurgency in Iraq, for example. But also, they've done some very good things.

Couric: Some people in the Arab community may see your position as a propaganda arm of the United States. So, how do you convey your support or explain U.S. policies and attitudes without feeding into that perception?

Hughes: You know, I say that public diplomacy is about policy and it's about people, because really in the end what people want to know is how is all this relevant to my life? What does American policy mean for me in my life? And so, I think we have to explain our policy in a way that's relevant to people in different parts of the world.

© 2005 MSNBC Interactive

Breaking News (aka Fear Up)

Baltimore tunnel closed due to terror threat
Authorities search Harbor Tunnel; massive traffic jams result

BALTIMORE - One of two tunnels carrying traffic under Baltimore’s harbor was closed Tuesday, creating a massive traffic jam near the nation's capital, and another was partially shut down in response to what an official said was a security threat.

The Baltimore Harbor Tunnel, a 1.4-mile, four-lane tunnel, was closed shortly before noon, said an officer at the Maryland Transportation Authority Police Command Center. The Fort McHenry Tunnel was partially closed, with one lane of traffic moving in each direction, said Lt. Col. David Franklin of the Maryland Transportation Authority Police.

Interstate 95, which uses the Fort McHenry Tunnel, is a key north-south artery through East Coast states, stretching from Maine to Florida. Baltimore is about 40 miles north of Washington, D.C.

A federal law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the threat was phoned in to authorities by a person claiming to have information from abroad. Authorities are skeptical of the claim, but are checking it out nonetheless, the official said.

The closures brought a lot of highway traffic in the city to a standstill. Orange dump trucks blocked the entrances to the tunnels, which carry Interstates 95 and 895 under water. As cars and trucks reached the heads of long lines, police officers directed them to detours.

There was a joint federal, state and local security operation under way and Gov. Robert Ehrlich was closely monitoring the situation, said Henry Fawell, a spokesman for the governor. He declined to comment further.

The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

Posted by: monkey at October 18, 2005 12:58 PM

Monkey:

Thanks for the update on the Empress of Damage Control.

"Couric: What do you think is the most important thing you heard on your listening tour?

Hughes: I think one of the things that struck me the most was how concerned people in those countries are about what Americans think of them. We tend to focus on what people in other countries think about America. I had one woman in Egypt tell me, “I worry that you all think we're all terrorists." I said, "Of course we don't think you're all terrorists." In fact, you know, we've gone out of our way to try to communicate. But, that's a hard message to convey. Especially when you have opponents in the terrorists who are trying to cloak what they do in the veil of religion. "

AND WHAT WAS REALLY SAID?...

Turks Challenge Hughes On Iraq
Female Activists Decry U.S. Policy
Glenn Kessler
Thursday, September 29, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/28/AR2005092801429_\
pf.html

ISTANBUL, Sept. 28 -- A group of Turkish women's rights activists confronted Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes on Wednesday with emotional and heated complaints about the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq,turning a session designed to highlight the empowering of women into a raw display of the anger at U.S. policy in the region.

"This war is really, really bringing your positive efforts to the level of zero," said Hidayet Sefkatli Tuksal, an activist with the Capital City Women's Forum. She said it was difficult to talk about cooperation between women in the United States and Turkey as long as Iraq was under occupation.

Hughes, a longtime confidante of President Bush tasked with burnishing the U.S. image overseas, has generally met with polite audiences – many of which consisted of former exchange students or people who have received U.S. funding -- during a tour of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey this week.

In this case, the U.S. Embassy asked an umbrella group known as Ka-Der, which supports women running for office, to assemble the guest list. None of the activists currently receives U.S. funds or had any apparent desire to mince words. Six of the eight women who spoke at the session, held in Ankara, Turkey's capital, focused on the Iraq war.

"War makes the rights of women completely erased, and poverty comes after war -- and women pay the price," said Fatma Nevin Vargun, a Kurdish women's rights activist. Vargun denounced the arrest of Cindy Sheehan, the mother of an American soldier killed in Iraq, in front of the White House this week.

Hughes, who became increasingly subdued during the session, defended the decision to invade Iraq as a difficult and wrenching moment for Bush, but necessary to protect the United States.

"You're concerned about war, and no one likes war," Hughes said. But "to preserve the peace, sometimes my country believes war is necessary," she said. She also asserted that women are faring much better in Iraq than they had under the rule of deposed president Saddam Hussein.

"War is not necessary for peace," shot back Feray Salman, a human rights activist. She said countries should not try to impose democracy through war, adding that "we can never, ever export democracy and freedom from one country to another."

Tuksal said she was "feeling myself wounded, feeling myself insulted here" by Hughes's response. "In every photograph that comes from Iraq, there is that look of fear in the eyes of women and children. . . . This needs to be resolved as soon as possible."

Turkey, a member of NATO, has long been a close U.S. ally, but relations have soured during the Bush administration, especially after Turkey's parliament blocked a request to allow U.S. troops to use its territory to invade Iraq from the north. National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley visited Ankara last week as part of a new effort by the White House to mend ties.

The Turkish public has also been rattled by an increase in attacks by the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK, an armed separatist group of Turkish Kurds operating out of northern Iraq. The United States has faced accusations that it has not done enough to rein in the group.

Nurdan Bernard, a journalist participating in the panel session, raised concerns about the PKK, prompting Hughes to say it was "somewhat an irony." She added: "Sometimes you have to engage in combat in order to confront terrorists who want to kill you."

Hughes later flew to Istanbul for meetings with religious leaders -- part of an effort to promote interfaith dialogue -- and with Turks who have participated in U.S. exchange programs. She returns to Washington on Thursday. ++

MORE ON THE FLOTILLA OF SPIN:

The undersecretary's dangerous trip
Karen Hughes takes her "Innocents Abroad" tour to the Middle East – and plays into the hands of Osama bin Laden.
Sidney Blumenthal
Sept. 29, 2005
http://fairuse.1accesshost.com/news2/salon60.html

President Bush has no advisor more loyal and less self-serving than Karen Hughes. As governor of Texas he implicitly trusted the former Dallas television reporter turned press secretary with the tending of his image and words. She was mother hen of his persona. In the White House, Hughes devoted heart and soul to Bush as his communications director, until, suddenly, she returned home to Texas in 2002, citing her son's homesickness. There were reports that Karl Rove, jealous of power, had been sniping at her.

From her exile, Hughes produced a memoir, "Ten Minutes From Normal," which is deeply uninteresting and unrevealing. Amid long stretches of uninformative banality lie unselfconscious expressions of religiosity, accounts of how she inserted Psalms 23 and 27 into Bush's speeches after Sept. 11, 2001, and an entire page of small type reproducing a sermon she delivered on Palm Sunday aboard Air Force One. She quotes then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice: "I think Karen missed her calling. She can preach."

After two undersecretaries of state for public diplomacy resigned in frustration in the face of the precipitous loss of U.S. prestige around the globe, Bush found a new slot for Hughes this year. She may be the most parochial person ever to hold a senior State Department appointment, but the president has confidence she can rebrand the United States.

This week, Hughes embarked on her first trip as undersecretary. Her initial statement resembled an elementary school presentation: "You might want to know why the countries. Egypt is of course the most populous Arab country ... Saudi Arabia is our second stop. It's obviously an important place in Islam and the keeper of its two holiest sites ... Turkey is also a country that encompasses people of many different backgrounds and beliefs, yet has the -- is proud of the saying that 'all are Turks.'"

Hughes appeared to be one of the pilgrims satirized by Mark Twain in his 1869 book, "Innocents Abroad," about his trip on "The Grand Holy Land Pleasure Excursion." "None of us had ever been anywhere before; we all hailed from the interior; travel was a wild novelty to us ... We always took care to make it understood that we were Americans -- Americans!"

Hughes' simple, sincere and unadorned language is pellucid in revealing the administration's inner mind. Her ideas on terrorism and its solution are straightforward. "Terrorists," she said in Egypt at the start of her trip, "their policies force young people, other people's daughters and sons, to strap on bombs and blow themselves up." Somehow, magically, these evildoers coerce the young to commit suicide. If only they would understand us, the tensions would dissolve. "Many people around the world do not understand the important role that faith plays in Americans' lives," she said. When an Egyptian opposition leader inquired why President Bush mentions God in his speeches, she asked him "whether he was aware that previous American presidents have also cited God, and that our Constitution cites 'one nation under God.' He said, 'Well, never mind.'"

With these well-meaning arguments, Hughes has provided the exact proof for what Osama bin Laden has claimed about American motives. "It is stunning ... the extent [to which] Hughes is helping bin Laden," Robert Pape told me. Pape, a University of Chicago political scientist who has conducted the most extensive research into the backgrounds and motives of suicide terrorists, is the author of "Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism," and recently briefed the Pentagon and the National Counterterrorism Center. "If you set out to help bin Laden," he said, "you could not have done it better than Hughes."

Pape's research debunks the view that suicide terrorism is the natural byproduct of Islamic fundamentalism or some "Islamo-fascist" ideological strain independent of certain highly specific circumstances. "Of the key conditions that lead to suicide terrorism in particular, there must be, first, the presence of foreign combat forces on the territory that the terrorists prize. The second condition is a religious difference between the combat forces and the local community. The religious difference matters in that it enables terrorist leaders to paint foreign forces as being driven by religious goals. If you read Osama's speeches, they begin with descriptions of the U.S. occupation of the Arabian Peninsula, driven by our religious goals, and that it is our religious purpose that must confronted. That argument is incredibly powerful not only to religious Muslims but secular Muslims. Everything Hughes says makes their case."

The undersecretary's blundering grand tour of the Middle East may be the latest incarnation of "Innocents Abroad." "The people stared at us everywhere, and we stared at them," Twain wrote. "We generally made them feel rather small, too, before we got done with them, because we bore down on them with America's greatness until we crushed them."

The stakes, however, are rather different than they were on "The Grand Holy Land Pleasure Excursion." Hughes' trip "would be a folly," Pape says, "were it not so dangerous." ++

Fascinating reading over at dailykos from blogger philinmaine who's been in Mississippi with his 2 sons doing reconstruction work for the last month. The experiences he describes and the responses are very interesting.

DEEP IN MS, MEET THE REAL SOUTHERN VOTERS, I'm blogging doing reconstruction work
by philinmaine
Tue Oct 18, 2005 at 04:48:04 AM PDT

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/18/7484/8768

HERE WE GO...

Cheney aide cooperating with CIA outing probe, sources say

A senior aide to Vice President Dick Cheney is cooperating with special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, sources close to the investigation say.

Individuals familiar with Fitzgerald’s case tell RAW STORY that John Hannah, a senior national security aide on loan to Vice President Dick Cheney from the offices of then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs, John Bolton, was named as a target of Fitzgerald’s probe. They say he was told in recent weeks that he could face imminent indictment for his role in leaking Plame-Wilson’s name to reporters unless he cooperated with the investigation.

More…

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Cheney_aide_cooperating_with_CIA_outing_1018.html

Bush's girls are doing well, huh? LOL

Rumors flying on the hill that Cheney will resign and Rice will move to VP.

I knew they'd trot out their token African American after that last poll, but this extent of raising her profile actually surprised me. She's been doing morning shows this week, speaking about civil rights in the south... but this?

Rumor reported by USNews, picked up on HuffPo.

White House Watch: Cheney resignation rumors fly

Posted 10/18/05
By Paul Bedard

Sparked by today's Washington Post story that suggests Vice President Cheney's office is involved in the Plame-CIA spy link investigation, government officials and advisers passed around rumors that the vice president might step aside and that President Bush would elevate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

"It's certainly an interesting but I still think highly doubtful scenario," said a Bush insider. "And if that should happen," added the official, "there will undoubtedly be those who believe the whole thing was orchestrated – another brilliant Machiavellian move by the VP."

Said another Bush associate of the rumor, "Yes. This is not good." The rumor spread so fast that some Republicans by late morning were already drawing up reasons why Rice couldn't get the job or run for president in 2008.

"Isn't she pro-choice?" asked a key Senate Republican aide. Many White House insiders, however, said the Post story and reports that the investigation was coming to a close had officials instead more focused on who would be dragged into the affair and if top aides would be indicted and forced to resign.

"Folks on the inside and near inside are holding their breath and wondering what's next," said a Bush adviser. But, he added, they aren't focused on the future of the vice president. "Not that, at least not seriously," he said.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/051018/18whwatch.htm?track=rss

Posted by: Amy at October 18, 2005 03:25 PM

I thought the Leader of the House took over.

No idea, Sparrow. I just think it's interesting that the rumor has been deliberately floated by "Bush insiders." Get everyone thinking about having an African American woman as VP....

Terrific and very educational article on NOC's and what it really means to blow the cover of an NOC (non-official cover) agent from George Friedman of http://www.stratfor.com via poster SilverWings at kos.

~snip~
Then there are those with non-official cover, the NOCs. These agents are the backbone of the American espionage system. A NOC does not have diplomatic cover. If captured, he has no protection. Indeed, as the saying goes, if something goes wrong, the CIA will deny it has ever heard of him. A NOC is under constant pressure when he is needed by the government and is on his own when things go wrong. That is understood going in by all NOCs.
~snip~
The NOCs are the backbone of American intelligence and the ones who operate the best sources -- sources who don't know they are sources. When the CIA says that it needs five to 10 years to rebuild its network, what it is really saying is that it needs five to 10 years to recruit, deploy and begin to exploit its NOCs. The problem is not recruiting them -- the life sounds cool for many recent college graduates. The crisis of the NOC occurs when he approaches the most valuable years of service, in his late 30s or so. What sounded neat at 22 rapidly becomes a mind-shattering nightmare when their two lives collide at 40.

There is an explicit and implicit contract between the United States and its NOCs. It has many parts, but there is one fundamental part: A NOC will never reveal that he is or was a NOC without special permission. When he does reveal it, he never gives specifics. The government also makes a guarantee -- it will never reveal the identity of a NOC under any circumstances and, in fact, will do everything to protect it. If you have lied to your closest friends for 30 years about who you are and why you talk to them, no government bureaucrat has the right to reveal your identity for you. Imagine if you had never told your children -- and never planned to tell your children -- that you worked for the CIA, and they suddenly read in the New York Times that you were someone other than they thought you were.

There is more to this. When it is revealed that you were a NOC, foreign intelligence services begin combing back over your life, examining every relationship you had. Anyone you came into contact with becomes suspect. Sometimes, in some countries, becoming suspect can cost you your life. Revealing the identity of a NOC can be a matter of life and death -- frequently, of people no one has ever heard of or will ever hear of again.

In short, a NOC owes things to his country, and his country owes things to the NOC.
~snip~

There's much more interesting reading here...
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/18/51459/246

Can a Vice President be Impeached and has that ever happened in our country's history?
Restoring Honor and Dignity to the oval office..

Ira:

Don't know if a Vice President can be impeached.

The last time scandal hovered over a veep's office was Agnew, whereupon he resigned, which was followed soon thereafter by a little thing called The Watergate hearings...

Ira:

Here's your answer:

http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/impeach2.htm

and though no VP has ever been impeached, a VP can get impeached.

we know about Agnew's resignation after a scandal uncovered while he was Gov. of Maryland, just wonder if anyone knows the historical precident or procedures for removal of a V.P. Seems like a real possibility now.

Miers would hear a New Hampshire abortion restriction case if sworn in by Nov. 30.

State of U.S. Courts. . .

Consider this:

Open Letter

October 23, 2005

United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544

Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219

United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543

Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790

RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)

Dear All:

Please be advise of the following criminal activity.

On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.

In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.

At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.

The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”

Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).

Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.

In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).

I demand an immediate investigation.

Respectfully,
(Name Removed)

http://www.google.com/sf905hf gi5geg be$t [URL=http://www.google.com/sf905hf]gi5geg[/URL] rulez gi5geg rulez
[URL=http://www.google.com/349gfff]45hgfhg[/URL] rockz http://www.google.com/349gfff 45hgfhg rockz 45hgfhg rulez
[URL=http://www.google.com/345gfrw]dshf95g[/URL] be$t http://www.google.com/345gfrw dshf95g brin dshf95g be$t

If we had no winter, the spring would not be so pleasant; if we did not sometimes taste of adversity, prosperity would not be so welcome.

An optimist is the human personification of spring.

Spring is a true reconstructionist.

Spring is when life's alive in everything.

Spring is a true reconstructionist.

O, how this spring of love resembleth
The uncertain glory of an April day!