Tactics Ammunition Drudge This! Articles Archive Policy Archive Weblog Archive Cons With Cons Search This Site
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
[However, Kennedy adjusted the numbers to account for undecided black voters, who overwhelmingly vote for Democrats, and said the runoff election currently stands in Blanco's favor. With that adjustment, Blanco would get 53 percent of the vote, compared to Jindal's 47 percent]
Republican Primary Trial Heat (among Republican voters): Cecil Underwood 30% Robin Capehart 8% Sarah Minear 8% Dan Moore 3% Monty Warner 3% Doug McKinney 2% Other 3% Undecided 43%
Democratic Primary Trial Heat (among Democratic voters): Joe Manchin 46% Darrell McGraw 11% John Perdue 5% Jim Humphreys 4% Lloyd Jackson 3% Jim Lees 3% Spike Maynard 2% Robin Davis 2% Other 1% Undecided 25%
A member of the independent commission set up to investigate the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks has accused the Bush administration of deliberately delaying publication of an earlier congressional inquiry into the attacks.
Former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., told United Press International that the White House did not want the report made public before launching military action in Iraq. He said the administration feared publication might undermine the administration's case for war, which was based in part on the allegation that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had supported Osama bin Laden -- and the attendant possibility that Iraq might supply al-Qaida with weapons of mass destruction.
"The administration sold the connection (between Iraq and al-Qaida) to scare the pants off the American people and justify the war," said Cleland. "There's no connection, and that's been confirmed by some of bin Laden's terrorist followers ... What you've seen here is the manipulation of intelligence for political ends."
Cleland accused the administration of deliberately delaying the report's release to avoid having its case for war undercut.
"The reason this report was delayed for so long -- deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created -- is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out," he said.
"Had this report come out in January like it should have done, we would have known these things before the war in Iraq, which would not have suited the administration."
The congressional inquiry, by members of both the House and Senate intelligence committees, was launched in February 2002 amid growing concerns that failures by U.S. intelligence had allowed 19 al-Qaida members to enter the United States, hijack four airliners and kill almost 3,000 people.
Although the committee completed its work at the end of last year, publication of the report has been delayed by what one committee staffer called "vigorous discussion" with administration officials over which parts of it could be declassified.
The 800-page report -- 50 pages of which were censored to protect still-classified information -- was published Thursday.
It is a litany of poor management, bad communication and flawed policy that enabled the 19 hijackers to carry out their deadly plan. Failures by the CIA, the FBI and the super-secret National Security Agency are catalogued.
Many of the censored pages concern the question of support for al-Qaida from foreign countries. Anonymous officials have told news organizations that much of the still-classified material concerns Saudi Arabia, and the question of whether Saudi officials -- perhaps acting as rogue agents -- assisted the 19 men, 15 of whom were Saudis.
Inquiry staff would not comment to UPI about the issue, but one did say that the section contained references to "more than one country."
Prior to the report's publication, a person who had read it told UPI that it showed U.S. intelligence agencies had no evidence linking Iraq to the 9-11 attacks or to al-Qaida. In fact, the issue is not addressed in the declassified sections of the report.
One other person who has seen the classified version of the document told UPI subsequently that the Iraq issue is not addressed in the still-classified section, either. "They didn't ask that question," the person said. - Article
Senator Bob Graham on Sunday stepped up the rhetoric over the build up to the war in Iraq, suggesting President George W. Bush might be worthy of impeachment over the issue.
Mr Graham, a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination for 2004, accused the Bush administration of intentionally deceiving Americans about the scale and imminence of the threat from Iraqi weapons in the months leading up to the war. He also said the US administration operated under a veil of secrecy and had intentionally misinformed Americans about likely post-war costs and commitments.
Mr Graham said that if President Bush had been held to the same standards as former President Clinton, he would have also been impeached.
"What is the standard of impeachment?" he asked on NBC's Meet the Press public affairs program. "Clearly if the standard is now what the House of Representatives did in the impeachment of Bill Clinton [in 1998], the actions of this president are much more serious in terms of dereliction of duty."
Mr Graham chaired the Senate Intelligence Committee last year and was involved in the congressional inquiry into September 11-related intelligence failures.
Paul Wolfowitz, deputy defence secretary, insisted the war was justified, even though intelligence data was "inherently murky." He insisted the US must act against perceived threats even when information was incomplete, saying "you often find out things after the fact that you didn't know before".
He insisted there was "unanimous" belief within the administration that Iraq had a major weapons program - "the only question was how far along it was and how long would it take them to get to their ultimate objectives". He said action would have to be taken pre-emptively in the administration's war on terrorism:
"If you wait until the picture is clear, you wait until it's too late to prevent something terrible from happening," he said. "The lesson of 9/11 is that you can't wait until you have complete proof after the fact."
Mr Graham conceded the point was somewhat "academic" because of the current make-up of Republican-dominated Congress and said Americans would in any case "have the opportunity to impeach and remove" the president in the 2004 election. - Article
The Bush administration should publicly acknowledge that Iraqi rebuilding efforts will cost American taxpayers tens of billions of dollars over the next few years, a key Senate Republican said in a radio interview on Saturday.
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar of Indiana said on National Public Radio that the White House understands there is a big price tag for rebuilding Iraq. ``But they do not wish to discuss that,'' Lugar said.
Asked by NPR whether rebuilding Iraq will cost tens of billions of dollars, Lugar responded, ``Yes. We are talking about that. And that's what needs to be talked about now as opposed to one surprise after another'' in funding requests to Congress.
Lugar supported the war in Iraq but has said U.S. post-war planning was inadequate. During the interview, Lugar said the White House should lay out a 4-year budget plan for providing security, humanitarian aid and other expenses related to rebuilding Iraq after the overthrow of President Saddam Hussein.
Lugar mentioned a possible cost of $30 billion.
On Tuesday, Lugar's committee will review U.S. progress in Iraq. High-ranking Pentagon and White House budget officials are expected to testify.
In the interview, Lugar also said top Bush administration officials were underestimating what is needed to get the security situation under control in Iraq.
Referring to recent statements by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that progress was achieved with the hiring of 30,000 Iraqi policemen, Lugar said, ``Almost all estimates are that 70,000 are required. That's tough to get.'' - Article
Lord Hutton, the judge heading an investigation into the death of Dr David Kelly, is to demand that Tony Blair surrenders sensitive e-mails, paperwork and phone records which could draw the Prime Minister directly into the affair.
Hutton, whose inquiry is expected to begin later this week, will make the request after sources close to the government suggested a trail of paper and electronic data could prove Downing Street’s involvement beyond doubt.
Scotland on Sunday has been told that notes on the government’s decision to "out" Dr Kelly as the source for BBC claims that the case for war in Iraq had been "sexed up" may have been taken during Downing Street’s daily 8.30am meetings of senior staff. A spokesman for the inquiry said it was vital that any relevant Downing Street records be passed to Lord Hutton in order to establish the role of ministers and officials in the events that led up to Kelly’s suicide shortly after his identity was leaked.
The Downing Street meetings would have been attended by Blair’s communications director Alastair Campbell, chief of staff Jonathan Powell and political adviser Sally Morgan. Insiders also claim Kelly may have been alluded to in e-mails and telephone calls which are routinely logged.
Yesterday Lord Hutton met Kelly’s grieving family privately to discuss how his forthcoming inquiry into the death would proceed. There were reports last night that Kelly’s wife Jan may have kept a record of the days running up to his suicide that could tell the full story of his treatment by the government.
Hutton’s intervention was backed by one of Kelly’s closest friends, Professor Alastair Hay, who believes Blair was intimately involved in the affair. He said the handover of such materials was essential and a spokesman for the Hutton inquiry said Hutton would expect nothing less.
The latest developments are a serious setback for the Prime Minister, who has been fighting hard to distance himself from the Kelly affair but now finds himself facing fresh questions about his role in the events leading to Kelly’s death. Last night former Labour defence minister Doug Henderson added to the theory that Blair could be caught up in the investigation after he told Scotland on Sunday he believes Blair may himself have been consulted about the leaking strategy.
He refuses to accept Blair’s claims that he was unaware of the strategy to leak Kelly’s identity as the BBC source for its claims the case for war in Iraq had been "sexed up".
The MP, a member of Blair’s government until 1999, said that based on his own experience during the Kosovo conflict, he believed Downing Street would have been intimately involved in the Kelly affair.
Henderson added that the decision "might have gone to the very top" despite Blair’s strenuous denials.
Another source close to the government said Blair’s "fingerprints were all over it" and one of Kelly’s closest friends insisted the Prime Minister was linked directly to the death of the Ministry of Defence scientist, who was appalled to find his name and reputation thrust into the public arena.
The leak strategy was devised in an attempt to discredit the BBC which the government claimed had inaccurately described its source as a senior intelligence figure.
The former minister, who is regarded as a moderate figure close to Gordon Brown, said: "I would guess that the (MoD) Permanent Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence knew about the decision to effectively leak Kelly’s name to the press and I believe that would be known by Downing Street.
"I can’t believe that such a key decision would be taken without passing it to someone in Downing Street.
"If that process was followed, Downing Street would have been at the very minimum consulted about their views and it might have gone to the very top.
"He (Blair) wouldn’t probably attend a meeting that dealt with this kind of thing but someone from Downing Street would almost certainly be present."
Sources close to the government also claim Blair and other ministers knew Kelly had admitted being the BBC source six days before his name was leaked to the media.
The allegations place Blair, who strenuously denies authorising a leak, at the heart of the events leading up to Kelly’s suicide earlier this month.
One informed source said: "Blair knew that Kelly had come forward on July 3, six days before Kelly was named. (David) Blunkett (the Home Secretary) knew about it on July 3 too and I understand other ministers did as well."
Meanwhile, Professor Alastair Hay, a chemical weapons expert and friend of Kelly, said: "This death was the consequence of a process and he (Blair) could have called the dogs off.
"Instead they just ground on relentlessly and there seemed to be no cognisance of fact that there was a terrible dimension to this and that someone was under such stress."
As this newspaper exclusively revealed last week, Downing Street officials sought to pin responsibility for the government’s mishandling of the affair on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon’s department.
Now, as the Prime Minister faces up to the expected resignations of Hoon and his communications director Campbell, he is set to come under intense pressure over his own role.
The Tories said the position of any minister who put Kelly’s name into the public domain for political reasons would be "untenable".
David Davis, the shadow Deputy Prime Minister who claims Blair has put "spin first and the truth second", added: "In view of the confusion over whether the Prime Minister was consulted about the release of Dr Kelly’s name, all the relevant papers in Downing Street should be made available to Lord Hutton’s inquiry."
A spokesman for the Prime Minister refused to add to earlier remarks Blair has made about his role in the affair, other than to confirm: "We will make materials available to the inquiry."
Yesterday it emerged that Blair had told allies he would not allow Kelly’s death to deflect his determination to secure a historic third term.
He is expected to use a press conference on Wednesday to underline his desire to take Labour into the next election and beyond.
The row between the BBC and the Government escalated dramatically last night.
Gavyn Davies, the corporation’s chairman, was reported as having accused Cabinet ministers of seeking to destroy the independence of the BBC in revenge for its refusal to back down in the Iraq dossier row.
Insiders at the BBC believe that Labour ministers are attempting to use the renewal of the BBC’s charter, which is due to come up in 2005. - Article
Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney attempted to restate the administration's case for war at a speech at the conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute. He repeatedly cited an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that warned Saddam Hussein was seeking to develop nuclear weapons.
"Those charged with the security of this nation could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away, would be irresponsible in the extreme," Cheney said. "And our President did not ignore that information--he faced it. He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful, diplomatic means and, when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger."
Former CIA analyst Melvin Goodman responded on Democracy Now! by describing Cheney's speech as the "longest statement of disinformation that I think the American government has distributed to the American people."
Goodman went on to say, "For Dick Cheney to recite those charges we all know now not to be true adds to the terrible politicization of intelligence that's created a scandal in the intelligence community unlike anything I ever saw in my 24 years in the C.I.A. that includes the period of Vietnam, the period of the intelligence failure on the Soviet Union, and the incredibly contentious disputes over arms control."
Cheney did not discuss his role in the Iraq-Niger uranium scandal or the reports that he personally went to CIA headquarters to pressure the Agency on Iraq intelligence.
Senator Bob Graham of Florida yesterday called for a congressional probe to examine Cheney's meetings with the CIA.
SPEAKERS:
Vice President Dick Cheney, speaking on July 23, 2003 at the American Enterprise Institute.
Melvin Goodman, former CIA and State Department analyst. He is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and director of the Center?s National Security Project. He is the author of the forthcoming book Bush League Diplomacy: Putting the Nation At Risk (Prometheus). He is a professor of international security studies and chairman of the international relations department at the National War College.
(TAPE) DICK CHENEY: The ability to criticize is one of the great strengths of our democracy. But those who do so have an obligation to answer this question. How could any responsible leader have ignored the Iraqi threat? Last October, the director of central intelligence issued a National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's continuing programs of weapons of mass destruction. That document contained the consensus judgments of the intelligence community based upon the best information available about the Iraqi threat. The N.I.E. declared: We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction program in defiance of the U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions. If left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade. Those charged with the security of this nation, could not read such an assessment and pretend that it did not exist. Ignoring such information, or trying to wish it away would be irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information, he faced it. He sought to eliminate the threat by peaceful diplomatic means and when all else failed, he acted forcefully to remove the danger.
Consider another passage from last October's National Intelligence Estimate. It reported: All key aspects, the R&D, production, and weaponization of Iraq's offensive program are active and that most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War. Remember we were dealing here with a regime that had already killed thousands of people with chemical weapons. Against this background, to disregard the N.I.E.'s warnings would have been irresponsible in the extreme. And our President did not ignore that information. He faced it and acted to remove the danger. Take a third example -- the N.I.E. cautioned that, Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons. In the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Here again, this warning could hardly be more blunt or disturbing. To shrug off such a warning would have been irresponsible in the extreme. And so President Bush faced that information and acted to remove the danger.
A fourth and final example -- the National Intelligence Estimate contains a section that specifies the level of confidence that the intelligence community has on the various judgments included in the report. In the N.I.E. on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the community had high confidence in the conclusion that Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to U.N. resolutions. The intelligence community also had high confidence in the judgment that, and I quote, Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once it acquires sufficient weapons grade fissile material.End quote. Ladies and gentlemen, this is some of what we knew. Knowing these thing, how could we, I ask, have allowed that threat to stand. These judgments were not lightly arrived at, and all who were aware of them bore a heavy responsibility for the security of America.
AMY GOODMAN: Vice President Dick Cheney speaking yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute just after the congressional report came out. You are listening to Democracy Now!. Melvin Goodman, former C.I.A. and State Department analyst, your response to what Dick Cheney was attempting to put out yesterday?
MELVIN GOODMAN: Well, this is the longest statement of disinformation that I think the American government has distributed to the American people. You know, the very obvious thing is where are the nuclear weapons. Why haven't we found the nuclear weapons? Why haven't we found the evidence that he was really trying to import uranium and enrich uranium for nuclear weapons? Where are the scud-type missiles that Cheney was talking about? Where are the hundreds and hundreds of tons of chemical agents that he said, and the C.I.A. said could fill 16,000 rockets. Where are the huge numbers of materials that were supposedly produced for thousands of liters of Anthrax and botulinum toxin and all of the other biological agents that Colin Powell listed in his speech to the UN--which was written for him by the C.IA. after he turned down a version of the speech that was written for him by Dick Cheney's chief subordinate? Where is any of this material? The fact of the matter is that there was no clear and present danger, there was no imminent threat. And for Dick Cheney just to recite these charges that we all know now not to be true, adds to the terrible politicization of intelligence that's created a scandal in the intelligence community unlike anything I ever saw in my 24 years in the C.I.A. That includes the period of Vietnam, the period of the intelligence failure on the Soviet union, and the incredibly contentious disputes over arms control.
The unfortunate thing is that George Tenet's hands aren't clean in any of this either. He tried to have it both ways. In October, which is important--the very month that George Tenet sent two memos to the N.F.C. and called Stephen Hadley and told Hadley that he could not use the statement with reference to Iraq trying to obtain supplies of uranium, of so-called yellow cake--that was the same month that George Tenet endorsed, authorized, signed the national intelligence estimate that said many of the things that Dick Cheney just recited. So this is what I mean by George Tenet failing totally in his job as an intelligence coordinator or intelligence arbitrator. He gave evidence out there that the critics of the war could use, and he gave a great deal of material out there that people such as Dick Cheney who wanted this war so badly could also use. That's why this country faces the terrible dilemma it now faces and continues to witness the terrible situation we have in Iraq, where American lives are lost on almost a daily basis and American treasure to the tune of about $4 billion a month is being spent to try to get through some transition period in Iraq, from which we're eventually going to have to withdraw from. This is a very sad spectacle and Dick Cheney has just added to this terrible problem.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Melvin Goodman, you talk about the inability of the administration to find any physical evidence. But there was a lot made during the period leading up to the invasion of the -- of the Iraqi scientists. And once the Iraqi scientist were able to freely talk about what kind of a program Saddam Hussein had, that the truth would come out. Yet we've seen no Iraqi scientists even brought forward by the administration to give eyewitness accounts of this alleged program.
MELVIN GOODMAN: I agree with your point there. And the worst example of that is the fact that the United States is holding at the Baghdad airport the chief scientific advisor to Saddam Hussein. A man by the name of Amir al-Saadi. Now, I would have to think that if Amir al-Saadi were giving information to the United States that would be helpful to make the case that Dick Cheney has just alleged, I think we'd be parading Amir al-Saadi before the National Press Club or meet the American audience to make the case for us. But we're not doing that. Many of the scientists we captured made it clear that these materials were destroyed in the 1990's, the so-called weapons of mass destruction.
The picture that's forming here is that the very point when the C.I.A. lost most of its intelligence collection-- remember when the U.N. inspectors could not return to Iraq, we lost our major means of collecting intelligence against Saddam Hussein and against the weapons of mass destruction. That's when the C.I.A. started doing its worst case estimates. And I think it's axiomatic, certainly for my 24 years in the intelligence community, that the less intelligence you have, the more dire are your warnings, because you're so afraid of the gaps in your intelligence. Clearly what we had from 1998 on to 2003 were huge gaps in intelligence. For Dick Cheney to talk about the intelligence community speaking with confidence is incredibly fallacious. There was no confidence within the intelligence community. And most of the serious analysts took argument with a lot of the opinions that were coming out that were supported by George Tenet and others. A good example of that was the case of the aluminum tubes--whether they were for strategic arms or for conventional arms. The Department of Energy which has the key expertise in this government for nuclear matters, made it clear that aluminum tubing was for conventional arms. But Colin Powell made a shaky case at the U.N. for why the aluminum tubes could only be compatible with strategic arms. That's why the Niger documents were so important. They were a hoax but they became important because if Saddam Hussein was trying to get his hands on uranium, that it would lend some credibility to the very weakest part of the argument about reconstituting its nuclear capability, which was having the aluminum tubes which, I might add, was obtained on the open market, with open documentation, That’s an odd way to obtain something to rebuild a nuclear program that was banned by U.N. resolution. And then that brings one final point. That brings you back to Dick Cheney. Who was the one person in the administration who was pushing the reconstitution of nuclear weapons and the nuclear program so hard? It's always been Vice President Dick Cheney. Because that's the most compelling argument you could make about going to war. That's what would terrify the American people. The President talked about the mushroom cloud from nuclear weapons. Condy Rice, very dramatically talked about the mushroom cloud from nuclear weapons. You know of all of the fraudulent aspects of the reasons why we went to war, the worst was the reconstitution of the nuclear capability because no serious scientist or analyst in this city or at the United Nations believed any of it.
AMY GOODMAN: Melvin Goodman, thank you very much for being with us, former C.I.A. and State Department analyst. - Article
Since the days of Warren G. Harding, presidents have met at the White House with leaders of the NAACP. Not President Bush - at least not yet. More than halfway through his presidency, Bush has yet to receive the nation's oldest civil rights group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or the Leadership Conference of Civil Rights, an umbrella organization.
The president met with the Congressional Black Caucus for an hour or so during his first month in office, but has not responded to a half-dozen subsequent requests to meet again.
While Bush, who got 9 percent of the black vote in 2000, has shunned sit-downs with established black groups, he has reached out to carefully chosen minority audiences and to civil rights advocates less critical of his policies. One example is the National Urban League, whose annual conference Bush is addressing in Pittsburgh today.
NAACP President Kweisi Mfume said he requested meetings with Bush in 2001 and last year, and "was told politely, in writing, that he'd love to meet, but his schedule just didn't allow it."
The president "talks to a variety of groups from across the political spectrum and reaches out to people from all walks of life," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said last week when pressed on why Bush decided to speak to the Urban League but skipped the recent NAACP convention in Miami.
Bush did reach out to the NAACP as a candidate. In a July 2000 speech at the NAACP convention in Baltimore, he promised strong civil rights enforcement. He also said, "I am here because I believe there is so much that we can do together to advance racial harmony and economic opportunity."
Civil rights leaders are pleased with the diversity of Bush's team. It includes three blacks - Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, Secretary of Education Rod Paige and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. They praise Bush's $15 billion global AIDS initiative, but point out that Congress has failed to fully fund it. They are happy that Bush toured Africa, but say the five-day, five-nation trip lacked substance.
They back Bush's decision to position U.S. troops off the coast of Liberia, but wish he would order them ashore to quell unrest in the West African nation.
Bush's decision to avoid the NAACP breaks a tradition that dates almost as far back as 1909, when the organization was founded.
During his early session with members of the Congressional Black Caucus, Bush said, "I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting." But there have been no other invitations.
In protest, caucus chairman Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, a Maryland Democrat, boycotted a meeting Bush had this month with lawmakers to discuss his Africa trip.
"He talks to leaders all the time and meets with people all the time on a variety of those [civil rights] issues," McClellan said in defense of the president.
As this relationship has suffered, civil rights advocates say, so have civil rights laws. They point out that Bush announced his opposition to the University of Michigan affirmative action admissions programs on Jan. 15 - the birthday of Martin Luther King Jr.
"These policy decisions illustrate a pattern of hostility toward core civil rights values, and signal a diminished commitment to the ideal of nondiscrimination," a report issued by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights said. - Article
In an earlier article, I stated incorrectly that David Kay was a "scientist," thereby making an erroneous assumption...one, I have no doubt, 99.9% of the world has made - and was intended to make. It is a rare instance when the correction of a major factual error in a story actually helps make the case laid out by said story stronger. But my story questioning the credibility of David Kay got a major boost from the detection of an error.
When one hears of a "chief weapons inspector" whose specialty is nuclear arms, whose responsibility is being able to oversee the search, detection, assessment/analysis of sophisticated weaponry and/or the often elusive evidence thereof, what does one automatically envision? Well, if you are a reasonable person with reasonable, even minimal, expectations of what is appropriate, then you probably envision a SCIENTIST. Better yet, a NUCLEAR SCIENTIST, right?
Well, if you do, then you are dead wrong. Just like I was. I made the mistake of ASSUMING that David Kay, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN and now Bush's top pick for the job of turning up even traces of evidence that WMDs exist(ed) in Iraq, was a scientist. In fact, laboring under this illusion, I misread a confusingly worded paragraph in an article describing an interview with Dr. Gordon Prather, a real scientist, in which Prather discussed Dr. Kay. Both men worked under Reagan, but only Prather has the distinction of being a SCIENTIST, let alone chief scientist for the Pentagon.
I was alerted to the error -and the illusion of Kay's competence- by Dr. Prather himself, who wrote a note to inform me that Kay was no scientist - his pHD is is foreign affairs or some other nonscientific discipline. He's about as qualified to search for nukes as Ronald McDonald. Funny, when you search for David Kay's biographical info via google.com, you come up empty handed. Now I see why. Yet this is the man to whom Bush has entrusted one of the most scientifically rigorous tasks possible (the make or break provision of "proof" of WMD)? - Article
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards wants to require parents to have health insurance for their children, making medical care an American birthright much like education.
The North Carolina senator wants $25 billion annually in tax credits to help parents pay the cost of enrolling their children in private or government plans.
Edwards' plan is a targeted alternative to costlier and more widespread proposals to cover the uninsured being offered by several of his rivals for the Democratic nomination. The senator said the nation's 12 million uninsured children should be the first priority in reforming the health care system.
"The only way we can tackle this problem in an effective and responsible way is to ask for responsibility," Edwards said Monday at a New Hampshire health center, "from parents to make sure their children have health care, responsibility from government to help families get insurance and deal with rising costs, and responsibility from drug and insurance companies to bring the cost of health care down."
A plan that helps keep kids healthy could prove politically popular. Insuring children also is less costly than covering adults because they generally don't require as much medical attention.
Edwards' plan, estimated to cost $53 billion a year, also includes some targeted subsidies aimed at helping more than 8 million uninsured adults afford health care. It also proposes cost-control measures it estimates will save $15 billion to $17 billion annually.
The amount of the tax credit for children's insurance would vary depending on income and family size. The credit would be available to families with fewer than four members earning up to $75,000 and families of four or more earning up to $100,000.
Edwards said a typical family of four with income of about $60,000 and already covering the children through a parent's job would get a tax break worth roughly $300.
Parents would have to provide proof of their children's insurance when filing tax returns. Those who refused to provide coverage would have their children automatically enrolled in a government plan, with the cost taken out of their tax benefits.
To finance his plan, Edwards would repeal some of President Bush (news - web sites)'s tax cuts and would trim spending on some government programs.
Edwards' rivals in the Democratic race also are calling for expanding coverage for the uninsured.
Missouri Rep. Dick Gephardt would require all employers to provide health insurance and give large tax breaks to reimburse much of their cost. His plan would cost more than $200 billion a year.
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean have plans aimed at covering nearly all the 40 million Americans now uninsured, using a variety of tax breaks and other government programs to reach the goal. Kerry estimates his plan would cost $80 billion a year; Dean says his would cost $88 billion. - Article
Actor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the former Mr Universe who is pondering a new role as Mr California Politics, has not decided yet whether to run for governor in a special Oct. 7 vote, an aide said on Monday.
The Republican star of the "Terminator" action films had suggested in recent weeks he would run if an unprecedented recall effort against California's Democratic Governor Gray Davis went forward. But on Monday Fox News television and a Sacramento Bee columnist quoted sources as saying the Austrian-born actor would not seek the position after all.
"There are reports in the media that Arnold Schwarzenegger has decided not to run in the California recall election. These reports are incorrect," Schwarzenegger's political adviser George Gorton said in a statement.
"Arnold spent the weekend continuing his due diligence regarding a possible run. He has made no decision at this time. He will continue to weigh the pros and cons with his family and will continue to seek the counsel of supporters and colleagues."
Media reports speculated that Schwarzenegger's wife, television news personality Maria Shriver -- a member of the nation's best known Democratic family as niece of former President John F. Kennedy -- opposed her husband's entry into high-profile politics.
The filing deadline for candidates seeking to replace Davis is Aug. 9.
Leading Democrats say they will not run in the Republican-backed recall vote. Among Republicans likely to run are Bill Simon Jr., who lost to Davis just last November. U.S. Rep. Darrell Issa, who spent $1.7 million of his own money to help qualify the recall petition against Davis, is already running to lead the nation's richest and most populous state.
The Oct. 7 ballot will ask Californians whether they want to remove Davis, who is unpopular over the state's record budget deficit, and in a second question, list replacement candidates. If voters recall Davis, the winner of the most votes on the second ballot will become governor.
Although Schwarzenegger has no experience in electoral politics, analysts say he could emerge as the strongest candidate because he could position himself as an outsider running against traditional insider Davis.
Meanwhile, Davis received a boost on Sunday night when the state senate voted to back a compromise $100 billion budget that puts off much of the pain of the current deficit to future years. The assembly is scheduled to vote on the matter this week and Davis has signaled he would sign it if it passed. - Article
A new Department of Defense program allows traders to bet on the likelihood of future terrorist attacks.
The department's "Defense Advanced Research Project Agency" designed what it calls the "The Policy Analysis Market."
The program works much like the financial markets where traders buy and sell "futures" based on the possibility of a specific event in the Middle East, 11 News reported.
Some of the examples listed on the agency's Web site include the assassination of Palestinian leader Yassar Arafat and a missile attack by North Korea. Bidders would profit if the events for which they hold futures occur.
Defense officials said the market-based system is highly accurate when assessing such things as political and civil stability, economic health and military disposition of Middle East countries.
Participants would only have to pick a username and password to participate and the agency said it won't have access to their identities or funds.
But critics said this allows terrorists who are planning an attack to profit on the assault or even make false bets to mislead authorities.
Members of Congress said the market idea is not only wasteful, but repugnant.
"I think this is unbelievably stupid. That is a gentle thing to say about a program that is so devoid of value," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-North Dakota, said. "It combines the worst of all our values in my judgment. It's a tragic waste of taxpayer money. It will be totally offensive to almost everyone."
"[The] idea of a federal betting parlor on atrocities and terrorism is ridicules and grotesque," Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, said. "The bizarre plan we are describing today is a waste of taxpayer money and it needs to stop immediately. The program's intent is clear: the federal government is encouraging people to bet on and make money from atrocities and terrorist attacks."
Registration for the site begins Friday and will be limited to the first 1,000 traders. Actual trading will begin Sept. 1 and the Department of Defense plans to open the site to 10,000 traders by Jan. 1, 2004. - Article
Human induced global climate change is a weapon of mass destruction at least as dangerous as nuclear, chemical or biological arms, a leading British climate scientist warned.
John Houghton, a former key member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Monday that the impacts of global warming are such that "I have no hesitation in describing it as a weapon of mass destruction."
He said the United States, in an "epic" abandonment of leadership, was largely responsible for the threat.
"Like terrorism, this weapon knows no boundaries," Houghton said. "It can strike anywhere, in any form -- a heatwave in one place, a drought or a flood or a storm surge in another"
The US mainland was struck by 562 tornados in May, killing 41 people, he said, but the developing world was hit even harder.
For example, pre-monsoon temperatures this year in India reached a blistering 49C (120F), 5C (9F) above normal.
"Once this killer heatwave began to abate, 1,500 people lay dead -- half the number killed outright in the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Centre," Houghton said.
He said British Prime Minister Tony Blair begun to face up to this, rhetorically at least, but "nowadays everyone knows that the US is the world's biggest polluter, and that with only one 20th of the world's population it produces a quarter of its greenhouse gas emissions."
"But the US government, in an abdication of leadership of epic proportions, is refusing to take the problem seriously --and Britain, presumably because Blair wishes not to offend George Bush -- is beginning to fall behind too," Houghton said. - Article
An Evolution has begun. Politicalstrategy.org has officially closed down. Look for DailyNewsOnline.com to rise from the ashes, a powerful new site you won't want to miss. Click here to find out more! Click here to join the mailing list and be notified when the DailyNewsOnline is launched!
Sun Tzu Files 
and 
indicate whether the poll numbers are up or down from the previous poll. Incumbents are in italics. (prior results in '()')