From: The White House
To: Albert Gore
Dear Al:
We found some more votes. You won. When do you want to take over?
Sincerely,
George W. Bush
Have you noticed a difference in the salute given by our military men and women as President Bush walks by? Most folks would not notice anything, but military people see it right away.
Watch: When President Bush leaves his helicopter or Air Force One, the honor guards salute and face him as he disembarks, then turn their faces towards him as he passes by. They continue to salute his back as he walks away. This kind of salute has not been seen in the previous eight years, though it is customary courtesy to the Commander-in-Chief. You see, soldiers aren't required to turn and face the President as they salute. They are not required to salute his back. They are only required to salute. They can remain face-forward the entire time. And that is what they did during Bill Clinton's entire Presidency. Our soldiers were forced to obey Clinton's orders, but they were not forced to respect him. From their salutes, we can surmise that they did not. Why is such respect afforded to President Bush? He doesn't even know how to bite his lower lip and not get teary-eyed whenever he speaks! The following incident from Major General Van Antwerp may give us an insight.
Gen. Antwerp is president of the Officers' Christian Fellowship. He lost nearly all his staff when the Pentagon was attacked Sept. 11. His executive officer LTC Brian Birdwell was badly burned and in the hospital when President Bush visited him. Our President spent time and prayed with Brian. As he was getting ready to leave, he went to the foot of Brian's bed and saluted. He held his salute until Brian was able to raise his burned and bandaged arm, ever so slowly, in return. The Commander-in-Chief never initiates a salute, except in the case of a Congressional Medal of Honor winner. The injured soldier did not have to return the salute. But he did, out of respect to his President -a Soldiers' President. Congressman JC Watts (R. Oklahoma) said, "Character is doing the right thing when nobody is looking." The nation and world learned some of what our last President did when nobody was looking. That President has been disbarred this week -- the worst disgrace (other than imprisonment) to a lawyer. CNN will have a difficult time shining his or his wife's tarnished images. In this time of war and danger, I am so grateful to have a President whom the soldiers salute --fully.
On Special Report with Brit Hume, (hosted by Jim Angle this evening), at the close of the show when they normally have some funny video clip, they showed President Bush and the First Lady on their way to Maine to leave for Camp David for the weekend. As the video starts, the First Lady is leading the way into the helicopter with the spaniel dog on the leash, and the president is right behind her with the Scotty on the leash. As the First Lady entered the chopper, the Marine at the gangway saluted and held his salute. The Scottie the president was walking decided it wanted to sit right when he got to the steps. The president pulled on its leash, but the stubborn Scottie persisted in sitting. The president bent down and scooped up the pooch and entered Marine One. After he entered, the Marine cut his salute and returned to the position of attention. Moments later the president reemerged from the helicopter and out onto the steps. The Marine was standing at attention, head and eyes straight ahead. The president leaned over and tapped him on the left arm. The startled Marine turned his body toward the president and received his returned salute! I was so impressed by this true act of respect for our military people by our president! He really does get it. Most any other person of his stature would have just continued his journey, disregarding the neglected return salute. Not George W. Bush. He is earning the respect of the military community, not expecting it -- as most have and would. President George W. Bush. The man who admitted to having a drinking problem in younger years, and whose happy-go-lucky lifestyle led him to mediocre grades in college and an ill-fated oil venture. Who mangled syntax, and whose speaking mis-steps became known as "Bushisms." He came within a hair's breadth of losing the election in November. While votes were counted and re-counted, Bush quietly but confidently waited at his ranch. Make no mistake, his orders were carried out, but he stayed in the background, faithful and confident.
Bush named Jesus Christ as Lord of his life on public TV. Not an Oblique reference to being "born-again" or having a "life change." He actually said the un-PC-like phrase, "Jesus Christ!" On September 11, he was thrust into a position only known by Roosevelt, Churchill, Lincoln, and Washington. The weight of the world was on his shoulders, and the responsibility of a generation was on his soul.
So President George W. Bush walked to his seat at the front of the National Cathedral just three days after two of the most impressive symbols of American capitalism and prosperity virtually evaporated. When the history of this time is written, it will be acknowledged by friend and foe alike that President George W. Bush came of age in that cathedral and lifted a nation off its knees. In what was one of the most impressive exhibitions of self-control in presidential history, President George W. Bush was able to deliver his remarks without losing his resolve, focus, or confidence. God's hand, which guided him through that sliver-thin election, now rested fully on him. As he walked back to his seat, the camera angle was appropriate. He was virtually alone in the scene, alone in that massive place with God, just him and the Lord.
Back at his seat, George H. Bush reached over and took his son's hand. In that gesture his father seemed to say, "I wish I could do this for you, son, but I can't. You have to do this on your own. President George W. Bush squeezed back and gave him a look of peace that said, "I don't have to do it alone, Dad. I've got Help". What a blessing to have a professing Christian as President.
Please take a moment after you read this to "pray for him". He truly does have the weight of the world on his shoulders. Pray that God will sustain him and give him wisdom and discernment in his decisions. Pray for his protection and that of his family. Our President needs Christians around the world to be praying for him. As this makes the e-mail rounds, eventually there could literally be millions of people praying for him .
The president's plan to restructure the government is one of the main subjects of conversation in the capital. The good news is that it will create a lot of new jobs for Washington. The bad news is that it will create a lot of new jobs for Washington.
One of the biggest concerns of putting so many of the agencies into a new Department of Homeland Security is that there will be turf wars between them. I take you now to the newly rented President George Bush building on Pennsylvania Avenue, which holds 179,000 employees.
An Immigration and Naturalization director comes into Gov. Ridge's office. He says, ``Sir, I want to know why I didn磘 get the number one parking space in the building.创
Ridge says, ``That spot has already been reserved for the Coast Guard. They claim they are first to be prepared to fight the terrorists.创
As the Immigration officer is making his case, an expert in biological weapons comes into the office.
He is furious and says, ``Someone parked in my spot, A-12. I had to park in number 17. How do you expect us to protect everyone from an anthrax attack when I am in a corner of the garage?创
Gov. Ridge says to his aide, ``Who is in the biological weapons space now?创
``The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.创 ``Well, move them down to D-42 and tell them if they don磘 park there they are going to be towed away.创
The aide says, ``The Customs people would like to be upgraded to A-2. They say the real threat to the country is smuggled weapons and they are the only ones who can find them.创
Ridge says, ``I promised A-2 to the FBI, but they said they won磘 come over here unless Mueller gets A-1.创
The aide says, ``The Secret Service also wants A-1 because they say they have to be ready to get out as soon as the president leaves the White House.创
The governor says, ``Let me look at the chart. Why don磘 we put FEMA in the basement at C-20. We can push them around. Let磗 put the Customs Department in C-21. And we磍l put Nuclear Response in D-14.创
``Do you think the CIA will want to park their cars in our garage?创
``They can磘 until they tell us what they are up to.创
The aide says, ``Paramount Pictures just called and said they磖e doing a movie on Homeland Security with Ben Affleck and Morgan Freeman. They said they are going to need 20 parking spaces for their equipment trucks and trailers for the stars.创
``Why didn磘 you say that before? As soon as they arrive put all the security cars into the street. We need the film to show the country that we磖e doing a heckuva job.创
A is for Ashcroft
Whose belfry has bats
He'll save us from tin boobs
And calico cats!
B is for Bushes
Both father and son
And more, once the dynasty
Is well begun.
C is for Cheney
Especially Lynne
Who likes to make lists
Of who's out and who's in.
D is for Dick
He's Lynne's lesser half
His denials he's Regent
Are good for a laugh.
E is for Enron
Whose bills are come due--
Financially bankrupt
And morally, too.
F is for Florida
Which many equate
With the perfect Banana
Republican State!
G is for Groupies
The media whores
Who also are known as
The White House Press Corps.
H is for Harris
Whose past she may dwell on
When she is in prison
With actual felons.
I's for Iraq
and the unfinished war
King George wants to go back
And settle old scores.
J is for Jesus
Whose counsel George sought;
George then did the opposite
Of what He taught.
K is for Karl
and Karen as well
To keep them in balance
Puts Andy through hell.
L is for Lott
Who, with Tom DeLay,
Make sure the work stops
Until they get their way.
M is for Money
The capitalists' tool
They'll spend it like water
To keep voters fooled.
N's for November
The month of elections
It precedes the month when
The Court makes selections.
O's for Osama
A handy bete noire
We'll blame him as needed
When we want a war.
P is for Pitt
Securities Czar
To protect small investors
He won't go too far!
Q is for Quayle
Who, like George, ain't too smart
In '88 Poppy
Couldn't tell them apart!
R is for Rumsfeld
To foes he won't yield
Especially opponents
Of his missile shield.
S's for Scalia
Who sits on the Court
He's staunchly "pro-life"
But recounts he'll abort.
T is for Thompson
And Whitman and Ridge
Who are sorry they fell for Rove's
"Team player" pitch!
U is for Unocal
The time's almost ripe
For oil to flow
Through their Afghan pipe.
V is for Victory
Which will never come
'Cause George holds his power
When beating a drum.
W's for "W"
The typewriter key
The source of the fictional
Clinton crime spree.
X is for X-Ray
At Guantanamo Bay;
Where captives are grilled 'til
We like what they say.
Y is for Yucca
Where nuclear waste
Irrespective of science
Is headed, post-haste!
Z is for Zell
The apostate Dem
Sometimes he's with us
But usually with them.
Copyright (c) 2002 by drlimerick.com
Several new viruses have been discovered and are wreaking havoc throughout the national Internet system. Beware of:
and last but not least...............
Doesn't it make you proud? Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago democratic congressman Mel Reynolds to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll.
Reynolds was among the 176 criminals pardoned in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half year sentence for fraud, bank fraud & lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.
This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate.
His new job?
YOUTH COUNSELOR !!! Is this a great country or what?
From The London Observer
via http://www.Salon.com
Why didn't the media question Bush's shady stock dealings before he became president?
July 16, 2002 - Why the activities of oilman George W. Bush in the 1980s and 1990s should be a matter of headlines now is something of a mystery. The mystery isn't what actually happened. It is clear that in the course of making roughly $16 million, Bush flouted securities laws, rode roughshod over the rights of others and found protection among his father's friends. (Bush's memory is fuzzy on some of the details.)
But the real mystery -- and it is every bit as important in a democracy as what Bush knew and when he knew it -- is the one memorialized by the "curious incident" of the dog that roused Sherlock Holmes' interest in "Silver Blaze." The dog did nothing, Watson protested. But that was the point, said Holmes: Why didn't the dog bark on the night of the murder? The "curious incident" regarding the president's shady stock dealings is why the watchdog media didn't bark during the 2000 presidential election, when new unflattering evidence emerged in the month before the vote. This is not a question that even now the media is bothering to probe, which at least demonstrates a consistent talent for inertia. Indeed, if there is any effort now among the most delinquent, it is to cover up their inadequacies by misrepresenting what they did, or by suggesting the story is no big deal anyway, and never was. Back in 1991 it became known that when Bush, a director and consultant to Harken Energy, made a June 1990 insider sale of Harken stock, he failed to complete the requisite SEC Form 4. The deadline for reporting insider trades is the 10th day of the following month; Bush was eight months late. He unloaded more than 200,000 Harken shares for $848,560, just before the company revealed a quarterly loss of $23 million and its stock cratered.
The story is that an institutional investor -- an unnamed good fairy with a gift for timing -- called Bush's stockbroker just at the moment Bush needed $600,000 for a minority stake in the Texas Rangers. This was the stake he sold in 1998 for $16 million. The SEC, having looked into the affair, did not press any charges.
But that was then. During the presidential election, a more thorough investigation was carried out by a group of journalists at a time when Bush was saying he would run the White House like a business corporation. The reporters' conclusion was that candidate Bush's own business model was uncomfortably close to today's increasingly scandalous business practices. The general public, however, was not enabled to weigh this conclusion before it went to vote for president, because the press, print and electronic, signally failed to publicize the facts.
The revelations, based in part on documents secured under the Freedom of Information Act, were published in Talk magazine a month before the election. (I declare something of an interest here, in that the magazine was edited by my wife, Tina Brown.) The long report was the work of two Talk writers, Bill Minutaglio, a Bush biographer, and Nancy Beiles, who worked with Peter Eisner and Knut Royce at the Center for Public Integrity. This is what they reported:
First, Bush had made not just one but four Harken stock transactions worth more than $1 million between the time he joined the board of Harken and the beginning of the SEC probe. And each time he was at least three and a half months late filing the legal required report to the SEC. The writers quoted Alan Dye, who worked at the SEC during the Reagan administration, that this was getting into "dangerous territory."
Two, Bush had access to more knowledge than had previously been reported that Harken was failing financially at the time he dumped most of his stock, on June 22, 1990. The SEC never challenged Bush's claim that he had no idea Harken was in trouble -- and that if he had he would never have sold. But the magazine quoted documents showing Bush had been warned that the company was in bad financial trouble at least twice during the month he cashed out. On June 7, 1990, for instance, he received a memo from Harken CEO Mikel Faulkner, in which Faulkner predicted that sometime before the end of the month the company would run out of cash. He also noted that by August Harken would be in violation of "numerous" debt agreements. The magazine commented: "Of course it is possible he never read the materials, his colleagues told the SEC they provided.
After all, Bush is famous for his aversion to long and complicated reports. But if he did in fact skip meetings and blow off memos, he would have left himself open to an equally damaging charge: dereliction of his fiduciary duties as a Harken director."
The reporters also showed that Bush and his fellow Harken directors carried out accounting maneuvers that are a mirror image of the practices of their friends at the now-disgraced Enron. Unwilling to report greater losses than expected for 1989, Harken sold 80 percent of one of its own subsidiaries, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership of Harken insiders at an inflated price, a transaction that masked the losses and pushed up the stock price -- whereupon they sold their personal stakes. Months after Bush sold his stock the SEC directed Harken to recast its balance sheet to reflect a net loss of $12.5 million for 1989, four times more than originally reported.
The Talk report disclosed new details about the tactics Bush and his Texas Rangers baseball partners used to exploit the power of the state to grab 270 acres of private land in Arlington, the bulk of which was not intended for the new stadium but for private commercial speculation. This was very much at odds with his pledge to "do everything I can to defend the power of private property and private property rights." Maree Fanning, who lost her family horse farm as a result, had the best comment on the whole shoddy business. She told Talk reporter Robert Bryce: "If I saw Bush today, I'd say 'Bite my ass.'"
The report also revealed that Arlington Mayor Richard Greene, who facilitated the land grab, was also the principal agent by which the city subsidized the baseball owners in sweetheart deals. He told the public the Rangers were "putting $30 million cash equity upfront, like a down payment on a house." But according to the magazine's investigators, the Rangers' owners never did make a down payment. The $30 million was raised by the Arlington Sports Development Authority, a quasi-governmental body set up by the city and the state legislature.
Greene just happened to be facing two serious suits by the Resolution Trust Corporation, set up by the first President Bush for his involvement in two savings and loans institutions that had lost $2 billion. He ended up paying $1,650,000 to make the nastiness go away.
All this and more, including the Bush family connections with the SEC, was fissile material in the run-up to the 2000 election. Astonishingly, it was all ignored. As indeed had been earlier reports questioning the Rangers deal by Joe Conason in the New York Observer and Harper's, and by Robert Bryce in the Texas Observer. The elite mainstream press, notably the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and others, along with all the big television and radio news shows and the major newsmagazines, failed to report the Harken revelations. Only Tom Brokaw on NBC gave them a mention. In his long profile of Bush in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof covered the Rangers story well, but neither he nor anyone else on the Times news pages or Op-Ed ever got around to the bigger issue. All these news organizations were giving pages and pages and hours and hours to the election, but not one followed up the Harken story about which they have now been belatedly raising questions. If they did ask a question or two, they were blown off.
It' s not as if the originators of the scoop were shy in pressing for attention. The Center for Public Integrity issued a press release and put the story on its Web site; so did Talk magazine. Minutaglio and his colleagues were made available for television and radio. The Gore campaign picked up the press releases and gave them out. Nothing. Zilch. Two weeks after publication, MSNBC's Eric Alterman was so surprised by the silence he wrote a piece headlined "The scandal no one cares about." He asked: "Where is the New York Times' famed Whitewater reporter, Jeff Gerth? Where's the Washington Post special investigations unit? Where are the scandal-mongering Matt Drudge and the Fox factory philandering patrol?" He speculated that perhaps the issue was too large and serious for a celebrity press. Again, nobody took up the challenge.
Why? Why was a press that for years flogged the dead horse of Whitewater so indifferent to a much bigger, fresher story? Why didn't it probe, even if only to discountenance the allegations?
Three reasons suggest themselves, none of them edifying. The 2000 election was notorious for the way beat reporters got themselves trapped in a narrative that was throughout impervious to real news: the narrative that Gore was a braggart and a poseur and Bush was an amiable Forrest Gump. Anything that did not fit the preconceived pattern had little chance of seeing ink or breathing air. Throughout the entire campaign, the political reporters and their editors were typically less concerned with the integrity of Bush than Gore's decision to wear earth tones.
Second, they were suckers for spin when the Republican campaign managers shrewdly cottoned on to the material needed to keep the Gore stereotype going.
Finally, there was surely an element of political and personal prejudice against Clinton and Gore. The then-head of CNN said the network "would not dream of touching" the story; to do so would be unfair to Mr. Bush so close to the election. That the right-leaning editorial page of the Wall Street Journal would show a similar fastidious concern for its candidate was to be expected, but in this case solicitousness seems to have extended to the more robust news pages. The reporter who in 1991 discovered the original single failure to file was excited by the magazine scoop. She could never get her editors to report or follow up.
Of course, there are still unanswered questions. Perhaps there are very good explanations in unexamined documents.
President Bush himself has now remembered -- about one late filing -- that perhaps the SEC did not lose his paperwork, as he claimed in 1991. Now his White House spokesman blames "a mix-up by the attorneys," and Bush himself says, "I still haven't figured it out completely." He could ask the man who represented him in the SEC probe, one Robert Jordan, who is now his ambassador to Saudi Arabia. Better still, release all his papers, as the Republicans pressed the Clintons to do, and explain in this context what he means when he says "in the corporate world, sometimes things aren't exactly black and white."
None of the news oligarchs who failed the public in 2000 has fessed up -- or organized a proper follow-up. Still nobody has asked about the other late filings, or even bothered to record them. Little imagination is needed to picture the media furor if these details had come out about Clinton and Whitewater. Yet the Washington Post, which pursued Clinton with such zealotry, even urges Congress and others in the press not to be "distracted" by Harken. The New York Times, in the person of columnist Paul Krugman, is showing a belated concern, but none of the manic energy it manifested over Whitewater, Wen Ho Lee and the like. The Wall Street Journal has grossly misrepresented its own negligence, claiming in a July 10 editorial a vigilance it never exhibited at the time. Significantly, even now, the Journal refers only to "a" late filing, singular. The Journal's defensive argument is that it is amusing to see the Democrats whooping it up about Harken and responds as follows: "Two Words: Bill Clinton. Or for that matter Al Gore."
Yes, of course, we should have known; the business scandals are all the fault of the bad example set by the Democrats. That blow job, you must believe, destroyed the moral fiber of a generation of American businessmen -- and, it seems, the sense of priorities of the best professional newspeople.
About the writer
Harold Evans was the editor of the Sunday Times and the Times of London,
and most recently editorial director of U.S. News and World Report, the
Atlantic Monthly and the New York Daily News. He is also the author of
"The American Century." This article first appeared in the London
Observer.
Taking his boldest step to date to prop up the U.S.?s sagging equity markets, The White House announced today that President Bush would keep his mouth shut ?indefinitely? in the hopes that his silence would trigger an improvement in share prices.
?The President has noted that every time he talks about the country?s financial situation, the stock markets plunge,? said White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. ?Therefore, the President has determined that it would be best if he kept his pie-hole shut indefinitely.?
Markets immediately rallied on the news of the President?s decision to shut up, with the Dow rocketing 237 points and the NASDAQ 48 points moments after the White House announcement.
Minutes later, President Bush appeared in the Rose Garden to say that he was ?delighted and encouraged by the markets? rapid recovery? ? but his comments, broadcast live on the cable news networks, sent both the Dow and the NASDAQ into an immediate tailspin.
Charles Densmore, a market analyst for Merrill Lynch, said that the President?s ability to make the markets swoon by opening his pie-hole may be unparalleled in the history of the United States.
?Going forward, President Bush would be well-advised to put a sock in it,? Mr. Densmore said.
But the White House revealed that the President?s ability to move the markets may be put to other uses: early next week, the President will make ?major speeches? expressing bullishness about the economies of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under a fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan, which ensures that even if she never gets reelected she STILL receives her Congressional salary until she dies? If Bill outlives her, he then inherits said salary until he dies. He is already getting his Presidential salary until he dies. If Hillary outlives him, she inherits that. Guess who pays for it? WE DO! It's common knowledge that, in order for Hillary to establish NYC residency, they purchased a million + dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. They are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting. The mortgage payments hover at about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret Service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying for the Clinton's salaries, mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, as well as their 12 man staff, and it's all perfectly legal. And she wants to run for president.
George W. Bush, Albert Einstein, and Pablo Picasso have all died. Due to a glitch in the mundane/celestial time-space continuum, all three arrive at the Pearly Gates more or less simultaneously, even though their deaths have taken place decades apart.
The first to present himself to Saint Peter is Einstein. Saint Peter questions him. "You look like Einstein, but you have NO idea the lengths certain people will go to, to sneak into Heaven under false pretenses. Can you prove who you really are?"
Einstein ponders for a few seconds and asks, "Could I have a blackboard and some chalk?"
Saint Peter complies with a snap of his fingers. The blackboard and chalk instantly appear. Einstein proceeds to describe with arcane mathematics and symbols his special theory of relativity. Saint Peter is suitably impressed. "You really *are* Einstein! Welcome to heaven!"
The next to arrive is Picasso. Once again Saint Peter asks for his credentials. Picasso doesn't hesitate. "Mind if I use that blackboard and chalk?"
Saint Peter says, "Go ahead."
Picasso erases Einstein's scribbles and proceeds to sketch out a truly stunning mural. Bulls, satyrs, nude women: he captures their essences with but a few strokes of the chalk.
Saint Peter claps. "Surely you are the great artist you claim to be! Come on in!"
The last to arrive is George W. Bush. Saint Peter scratches his head.
"Einstein and Picasso both managed to prove their identity. How can you prove yours?"
George W. looks bewildered, "Who are Einstein and Picasso?"
Saint Peter sighs, "Come on in, George."
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka
Watching the pathetic, mealy-mouthed response of President Bush and his State Department to Egypt's decision to sentence the leading Egyptian democracy advocate to seven years in prison leaves one wondering whether the whole Bush foreign policy team isn't just a big bunch of phonies. Shame on all of them.
Since Sept. 11 all we've heard out of this Bush team is how illegitimate violence is as a tool of diplomacy or politics, and how critical it is to oust Saddam Hussein in order to bring democracy to the Arab world. Yet last week, when a kangaroo court in Egypt, apparently acting on orders from President Hosni Mubarak, sentenced an ill, 63-year-old Saad Eddin Ibrahim to seven years at "hard labor" for promoting democracy - for promoting the peaceful alternative to fundamentalist violence - the Bush-Cheney team sat on its hands.
The State Department, in a real profile in courage, said it was "deeply disappointed" by the conviction of Mr. Ibrahim, who holds a U.S. passport. "Disappointed"? I'm disappointed when the Baltimore Orioles lose. When an Egyptian president we give $2 billion a year to jails a pro-American democracy advocate, I'm "outraged" and expect America to do something about it.
I'm also frightened, because if there is no space in Egypt for democratic voices for change, then Egyptians will only be left with the mosque. If there is no room in Egypt for Saad Ibrahims, then we will only get more Mohamed Attas - coming again to a theater near you.
Mr. Ibrahim's "crime" was that his institute at the American University in Cairo was helping to teach Egyptians how to register to vote, how to fill out a ballot and how to monitor elections. The Egyptian court accused him of embezzling funds from the European Union, which supported his efforts. The outraged E.U. said no such thing ever happened.
This monkey trial was really about an insecure, isolated Mr. Mubarak quashing any dissenters, and it is much more important than it looks - because so many more people are watching than we think. The other day, I interviewed a leading Sri Lankan human rights activist, Radhika Coomaraswamy, director of the International Center for Ethnic Studies. We started out talking about Sri Lanka but ended up talking about Mr. Ibrahim, whom she knew, and America.
"What is the nonviolent alternative for expressing discontent [and promoting change]?" she asked me. "It's democracy. When you remove any democratic alternative, the only route left in many countries for expressing discontent is religious fundamentalism. Saad is the alternative democratic voice, and if we don't protect it we're just inviting more violence."
This ties in with a larger concern that human rights activists share toward America today - a concern that post-9/11 America is not interested anymore in law and order, just order, and it's not interested in peace and quiet, but just quiet. I am struck by how many Sri Lankans, who are as pro-American as they come, have made some version of this observation to me: America as an idea, as a source of optimism and as a beacon of liberty is critical to the world - but you Americans seem to have forgotten that since 9/11. You've stopped talking about who you are, and are only talking now about who you're going to invade, oust or sanction.
These days, said Mrs. Coomaraswamy, "none of us in the human rights community would think of appealing to the U.S. for support for upholding a human rights case - maybe to Canada, to Norway or to Sweden - but not to the U.S. Before there were always three faces of America out in the world - the face of the Peace Corps, the America that helps others, the face of multinationals and the face of American military power.
"My sense is that the balance has gone wrong lately and that the only face of America we see now is the one of military power, and it really frightens the world. . . . I understand that there is always a tension between security concerns and holding governments accountable for human rights. But if you focus on security alone and allow basic human rights violations in the name of security, then, well, as someone who grew up in America and went to law school there, I find that heartbreaking."
So do I. How about before we go trying to liberate a whole country - Iraq - we first liberate just one man, one good man, who is now sitting in an Egyptian jail for pursuing the very democratic ideals that we profess to stand for.
Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company
His company evaded taxes while feeding at the federal trough and doing business with the axis of evil -- no wonder Dick Cheney is still in hiding.
By now, you'd think the Bush White House would be pretty adept at responding to the rising tide of corporate scandals washing over the White House lawn.
Clearly, though, Team Bush had an off day last week when, in the space of 12 hours, it was revealed that both Harken Energy, while President Bush was on its board, and Halliburton, while Vice President Cheney was its CEO, had created subsidiary shell companies in offshore tax havens. The administration's attempt at what was presumably damage control did more harm than good.
First, Bush and Cheney's reps tried to argue that even though setting up shop in the Caymans is a favorite ploy of companies looking to avoid paying their fair share of taxes -- Enron had 692 subsidiaries there -- that wasn't the reason Harken or Halliburton had done it. Well, pray tell, what was? A desire to rack up frequent flier miles checking on the company headquarters/P.O. box? A desperate longing for a bitchin' tan? Cheaper umbrella drinks for company meetings?
As if this halfhearted evasion weren't lame enough, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett fell back on the classic Plan B: trying to make friends and win arguments by splitting hairs. Harken's offshore entity wasn't designed to evade taxes, explained Bartlett, it was meant to enhance "tax competitiveness." And to his credit, Bartlett didn't even break out laughing after this claim. Probably waited until he got back to his office. Oh yeah, and, also, oral sex isn't -- well, you know the drill.
White House press secretary Ari Fleischer even tried the ol' "No Harm, No Foul" defense, arguing that the reason Bush's company went Caribbean was a "moot question" because Harken never made any money on the Cayman venture. Memo to Fleischer: Arguing that the crime didn't pay isn't a defense. And by the way, thank you, Ari, for further evidence that our first MBA president was an exceedingly poor businessman.
These wobbly spin doctors' task was, admittedly, made much harder by the fact that on the same day these tax dodge disclosures came to light, President Bush had spoken out with his usual Dudley Do-Right forthrightness against the very same practice. "We ought to look at people who are trying to avoid U.S. taxes as a problem," he said. Indeed we ought. So why don't we?
Let's start by looking at the problem of the vice president and Halliburton. During the No. 2's time as the company's No. 1, the number of Halliburton subsidiaries registered in tax-friendly locations ballooned from nine in 1995 to 44 in 1999. The result? A dramatic drop in Halliburton's federal taxes, which fell from $302 million in 1998 to less than zero -- to wit, an $85 million rebate -- in 1999.
At the same time they were hard at work stiffing U.S. taxpayers, Cheney and Halliburton were happily feasting at the public trough -- the company received $2.3 billion in government contracts and another $1.5 billion in government financing and loan guarantees.
During the vice presidential debate, Cheney scored points responding to a Joe Lieberman zinger about the millions Cheney had made during the Clinton-Gore years by boasting that "the government had absolutely nothing to do" with his burgeoning bank account. Only someone fully immersed in the corporate culture of our day could view $3.8 billion as "absolutely nothing."
It would be nice to hear what Mr. Cheney has to say about all of this, but, unfortunately, the V.P. has been making himself very scarce as of late -- especially when it comes to the media. He hasn't spoken to reporters, given a press conference or made the rounds of the political chat shows since, coincidentally, right around the time in May when reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission was looking into Halliburton's Cheney-era accounting practices first surfaced.
His vanishing act has been so effective that many have started to wonder if Cheney has returned to his secure, undisclosed location. If he has, it's only because the mountain hideaway is filled with fat cat donors. It turns out that the vice president has been talking after all -- but only to those ready to write a hefty check to the GOP.
Cheney recently headlined his 47th fundraising event of the year, and he plans to make at least two dozen more of these coffer-cramming appearances before Election Day. At one such event, donors who ponied up $25,000 per couple were allowed to take part in a 45-minute roundtable discussion with Cheney. So it seems that if the White House press corps is ever going to get any face time with the vice president, it's gonna cost them. $555 per minute. I wonder if Connie Chung and Chris Matthews can team up and get the couples discount?
Of course, Cheney's reluctance to talk to reporters is understandable, given what has been coming to light about his heretofore highly touted tenure at Halliburton, including the questionable accounting, the offshore subsidiaries and the revelation that the company did business with Iran, Libya and -- despite Cheney's denials -- Iraq. Call this his "Axis of Profits."
But, to be fair, under Cheney, Halliburton did end up giving a little something back to America -- in the form of $2 million worth of fines for consistently overbilling the Pentagon. In one case they charged $750,000 for work that actually cost them only $125,000. Despite all this, the company has continued to be awarded massive government contracts, including a new 10-year deal with the Army that, unlike any comparable arrangement, comes with no lid on potential costs. I guess it really does help to have friends -- and ex-CEOs -- in very high places.
During a fundraising appearance last month, Cheney lauded the White House's commitment to "more accountability for corporate officials." But what kind of accountability can we expect when corporations are not only allowed to walk away with little more than a slap on the wrist for defrauding taxpayers but continue to be richly rewarded with government contracts?
Congress is currently considering legislation that will bar the Pentagon and the new Homeland Security Department from doing business with companies that have set up offshore tax-cheat havens since January. Which means that all the corporations that had the foresight to profit early from their disloyalty, depriving the government of $70 billion a year, are A-OK. If something is so wrong on Jan. 1, what made it right on Dec. 31?
We should bar the government from signing contracts with any corporation that has moved offshore to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Period. And we should go further and not enter into any contracts with any company that has been fined for ripping off taxpayers. Like the president said last year, you're either with us, or you're against us.
I'd love to know if this is the kind of "accountability" Dick Cheney was referring to. If you happen to find yourself at a GOP fundraiser, would you mind asking him?
About the writer
Arianna Huffington is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of
eight books. Her most recent, "How to Overthrow the Government," was
published in 2000 by Regan Books (HarperCollins).
You really should be sitting down when you read this one.
Gold Star Mothers is an organization made up of women whose sons were killed in military combat during service in the United States armed forces.
Recently a delegation of New York State Gold Star Mothers made a trip to Washington, DC to discuss various concerns with their elected representatives. According to published reports, there was only one politician who refused to meet with these ladies.
Can you guess which politician that might be? Was it New York Senator Charles Schumer? Nope, he met with them.
Try again. Do you know anyone serving in the Senate who has never showed anything but contempt for our military? Do you happen to know the name of any politician in Washington who's husband once wrote of his loathing for the military?
Now you're getting warm! You got it! None other than the Queen herself, Hillary Clinton. She refused repeated requests to! meet with the Gold Star Mothers.
Now -- please don't tell me you're surprised.
This woman wants to be president of the United States --- and there is a percentage of voters who are eager to help her achieve that goal.
Sincerely, Cdr. Hamilton McWhorter USN (ret)
May you sleep in peace always...and please...hug or thank a Veteran for that privilege.
Think about this one !!!
Don't forget, our girl, Hillary Rodham Clinton, as a New York Senator, now comes under this fancy Congressional Retirement and Staffing Plan. It's common knowledge that, in order for her to establish NYS residency, they purchased a million+ dollar house in upscale Chappaqua, NY. Makes sense. Now, they are entitled to Secret Service protection for life. Still makes sense. Here is where it becomes interesting.
The mortgage payments however are about $10,000 per month. BUT, an extra residency had to be built within the acreage in order to house the Secret Service agents. The Clinton's now charge the Secret Service $10,000 monthly rent for the use of said Secret service residence and that rent is just about equal to their mortgage payment, meaning that we, the tax payers, are paying the Clinton's mortgage, their transportation, their safety and security, their 12 man staff, and it's all perfectly legal.
We have one pervasive problem with our terror trials: crap evidence. Al-Qaida is comprised of fragmented cells with diffuse authority and limited knowledge about specific plots. Much like the mob, the organization is all about fostering plausible deniability. Someone like Zacarias Moussaoui, who admits to being al-Qaida and exults in the destruction of Americans, has still seen no evidence linking himself to the crime with which he's charged?involvement in the Sept. 11 plot. And Yaser Esam Hamdi?an American citizen captured in Afghanistan?is currently being tried based on a government affidavit that was practically scribbled on the back of a cocktail napkin. Jose Padilla, the alleged "dirty bomber," was apprehended at such an early stage of his dirty plot that there is evidently almost no conclusive evidence with which to try him. So, what's a constitutional democracy to do?
There are two ways out of this problem: either get better evidence, or rig the trials. Right now the Bush administration seems inclined toward the latter. We've solved the Hamdi problem, for instance, by denying him access to counsel, claiming this is somehow justified by his status as "enemy combatant." We've solved the Padilla problem and the problem of the various other detainees about whom we lack sufficient evidence by simply refusing to try them at all. It's a crude system, but effective.
The British have gone a different route: They have proceeded to test the evidence against their alleged terrorists, and, finding it lacking, they have simply freed them. After Sept.11, British Prime Minister Tony Blair fell all over himself to prove that he's as tough on terrorism as his cowboy buddy in Texas. Pushing his new Anti-Terrorism, Crime, and Security Act 2001 through Parliament, Blair was as trigger-happy as Bush when it came to suspending civil liberties and apprehending suspected terrorists without evidence or due process. But the British, suffering for a lack of a John Ashcroft, stupidly allowed for fair trials and a right to counsel. They made the mistake of permitting judges to scrutinize both the act itself and the defendants being held pursuant to the act. So it should come as no surprise that the first English terror trial following Sept. 11 ended two weeks ago in an acquittal.
Sulayman Balal Zainulabidin, a 44-year-old chef and convert to Islam, was charged with operating a Web site that incited followers to jihad?offering to send would-be terrorists to the United States for arms training courses. Zainulabidin's "Ultimate Jihad Challenge" Web site offered lessons in the "Islamic art of war" and a two-week firearms course in the United States for $4,700. Arrested three weeks after Sept. 11 and held for 10 months in a maximum security prison, the defendant claimed he was merely helping people find work in the security field.
Zainulabidin's trial defense was that he was a "trophy scapegoat" being persecuted by the state to show that they were going after terrorists. (This is Zacarias Moussaoui's defense as well.) Prosecutors tried to argue that the purpose of jihad Web site was clearly to "assist or prepare for terrorism." But after four days' deliberation, the jury disagreed. This acquittal was only the most recent blow to the British anti-terror efforts. Zainulabidin walked two weeks after another panel of British judges held that the detention of nine foreign terror suspects under the same anti-terror legislation was unlawful, finding the anti-terrorism act?empowering the British home secretary to detain foreign nationals suspected of involvement in international terrorism without trial?to be "discriminatory and unlawful."
Then, there's the inability of British judges to find sufficient evidence to extradite any of the suspects sought by the FBI in connection with Sept. 11. First, there was Lotfi Raissi, the Algerian-born pilot, believed by the FBI to have been the "lead trainer" for some of the Sept. 11 hijackers. An English judge found the evidence against him insufficient for extradition and released him last spring. Next there was Yasser al-Siri, a London-based bookseller accused of operating a fake "charity" that funneled funds to al-Qaida. Al-Siri was also freed recently after a judge ruled there was insufficient prima facie evidence to extradite him. The FBI is now seeking the extradition of Egyptian-born Sheikh Abu Hamza al-Masri, the radical Imam alleged to have recruited Richard Reed, the shoe bomber, among others. They believe they can make a case against him stick this time.
The tremendous irony at the heart of all this is that the reason the British are faring so very badly in their terror trials is that they are granting the accused rights enshrined in our Constitution, specifically?the right to speedy testing of the evidence and the right to a meaningful defense. Not only are we withholding the opportunity for a speedy trial from virtually all the suspects detained in connection to Sept. 11, we are withholding the possibility of any trial at all. Make no mistake about it: The British government doesn't have "worse" evidence than ours. They are just prepared to test it, while we are determined to lock it away in the dark and hope that it'll magically sprout and grow into something bigger.
The decision to respond to the horror of Sept. 11 with a sprawling dragnet that managed to sweep in a whole lot of suspicious, somewhat suspicious, and suspicious-by-association guys was not irrational. Both the U.S. and British governments needed to act quickly at the time, to restore calm, to reassure their citizens, and to attempt to stave off future attacks. But a dragnet isn't an end in itself, and the British seem to have recognized this fact, while the Americans still sit by, paralyzed. The British aren't necessarily losing their war on terror. They're merely taking our Constitution more seriously than we do.