Obama's 2012 insurance policy?

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/30/obama_2012_republicans/index.html

Thursday, Sep 30, 2010
Obama's 2012 insurance policy?
It's remarkable how many of the Republicans in the '12 mix are spectacularly unelectable
Steve Kornacki

What may be most notable in the new Gallup poll on the 2012 Republican presidential race is the significant distance between Mitt Romney, who leads the crowded pack with 19 percent, and the next candidate without obvious and glaring general election liabilities. Just consider the results:

Romney 19%

Sarah Palin 16%

Mike Huckabee 12%

Newt Gingrich 9%

Ron Paul 7%

Tim Pawlenty 3%

With the disclaimer that anything is possible (and the obligatory acknowledgement that many Democrats didn't believe until the very end in 1980 that Ronald Reagan could ever actually win the Whitre House), it's hard to imagine Palin, Huckabee, Gingrich or Paul winning a general election in 2012, even if the economy hasn't improved significantly. They just carry too much baggage, and nominating one of them would likely produce something like what we're now seeing in Delaware, where a radioactive GOP nominee is about to cost the GOP a seat it would otherwise win.

I can't remember so many poiosnous general election prospects near the top of the GOP field at this stage in any recent contest. Last time around, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and (sort of) Romney were all near the top of the pack early. All of them passed the November electability test. (Sure, McCain fell flat against Barack Obama, but that was more a testament to the political climate; that same race in the climate of, say, 2004, could well have produced a different result.) Back in the 2000 cycle, the big GOP fish included George W. Bush, Elizabeth Dole and McCain. For 1996, we had Bob Dole and Jack Kemp, and in 1988, George H.W. Bush, Dole and Kemp. Sure, there were some toxic prospects in these cycles (Dan Quayle figured prominently in '96 talk and actually ran -- briefly -- in '00), but in each race had more than one general election heavyweight out front early. Not so for 2012.

Moreover, as NBC's First Read noted this morning, Romney's grip on the frontrunner's slot is unusually tenuous. The GOP's conservative base is markedly cooler to him than it was to McCain at this point in the '08 cycle and Dole at this point in the '96 cycle, even as that same base seems to be warming up even more to Palin, Gingrich and Huckabee. Factor in the most alarming GOP Senate primary results this year -- a Republican electorate in Delaware that willfully committed political suicide, for instance -- and it's fair to questions the assumption that the GOP primary electorate of 2012 will be as pragamtic as it's been in the past. Don't forget: the last time the Republican base was as angry at its own establishment as it is now was in the late '70s. Back then, the favorite of the restive right for the next GOP nomination also happened to be the next-in-line guy: Reagan. But Romney, to borrow a tired expression, is no Ronald Reagan. To the New Right of the late '70s, Reagan was practically a god. To the Tea Party, though, Romney is just a somewhat likable, extremely ambitious office-seeker.

This should provide at least a little comfort to Barack Obama. I've written before that his 2012 fate will rest on the economy. If it improves significantly between now and then, he'll win, no matter whom the GOP nominates. And if it doesn't, he'll be in serious trouble. But the evolution of the GOP in the Obama era suggests a third possibility: that the economy will be weak enough to give the GOP a winnable race in 2012 -- but that they'll nominate a candidate who's incapable of taking advantage of it.

Steve Kornacki is Salon's news editor. Reach him by email at SKornacki@salon.com and follow him on Twitter @SteveKornacki

Bush Sr. on 11-22-63

http://www.shout.net/~bigred/mc081310.html

(Melchizedek Communique, MC081310) George H.W. Bush, alias "Poppy" Bush, does not remember where he was on November 22, 1963, the day President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. But Russ Baker, author of the book "Family Of Secrets", has established where he was.

In the Autumn of 1963, Poppy Bush was a candidate for the U.S. Senate, from Texas. He traveled all over Texas and opened a campaign headquarters in Dallas. It is now scarcely beyond doubt that Poppy was there on the morning of November 22, 1963.

But especially worrisome is how Poppy has disguised his whereabouts.

In 1988, The Nation magazine published an article: "George Bush of the CIA". A memo had surfaced. "The F.B.I. memorandum, dated November 29, 1963, is from Director J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department and is subject-headed 'Assassination of President John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963.' In it, Hoover reports that the Bureau had briefed 'Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency' shortly after the assassination on the reaction of Cuban exiles in Miami." [1]

"It was some different George Bush," claimed the Poppy Gang. No it wasn't. It was Poppy Bush, a CIA boy since at least 1963.

About 6 weeks after The Nation report, on August 25, 1988, the San Francisco Examiner published a tiny article, "Documents: Bush Blew Whistle on Rival in JFK Slaying." A few hours after JFK was murdered, Poppy Bush phoned the FBI to offer his suspicions about one James Milton Parrott. Mr. Parrott, stated Poppy, had "been talking of killing the president." And Poppy added, seemingly incidentally, that he was phoning from Tyler, Texas. This established an official file placing him in Tyler, Texas on the fateful day. [2]

Barbara "Babs" Bush, wife of Poppy, in 1994 suddenly recalled where she and Poppy were on November 22, 1963: It was Tyler, Texas and she was getting her hair done. [2]

But a Mr. Joe Zeppa had lent Poppy his plane on November 22, 1963. That plane had flown from Dallas on the morning of JFK's assassination. When Poppy Bush phoned the FBI that afternoon, he indeed was in Tyler. But Poppy almost certainly had been in Dallas on the morning of President Kennedy's murder. [2]

So why couldn't Poppy remember where he was that day? And why did he, almost immediately after JFK had been shot, make certain to establish with the FBI that he was in Tyler -- got that? -- Tyler, Texas.

------- Notes -------
[1] "The Man Who Wasn't There, 'George Bush,' C.I.A. Operative", by Joseph McBride. The Nation, July 16/23, 1988
[2] Family of Secrets, by Russ Baker. New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009

Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/04/02/dan_quayle_still_blaming_perot_for_clinton/index.html
Friday, Apr 2, 2010
Dan Quayle still pushing "Perot elected Clinton" nonsense
For nearly 20 years, the right has been arguing that the Democrats' 1992 win should come with an asterisk
By Steve Kornacki

In 1992, Bill Clinton won a decisive victory in the presidential race, snagging 370 electoral votes and relegating George H.W. Bush to a smaller share of the vote than any incumbent president since William Howard Taft in 1912.

The right is still pretending this didn’t really happen. Oh sure, they acknowledge that Bill Clinton was elected and sworn-in as the nation’s 42nd president. They just claim it wasn’t really a legitimate victory. Case in point: an op-ed from Dan Quayle set to appear in Sunday’s Washington Post. Quayle writes:

Many remember the Reform Party of the 1990s, which formed around the candidacy of Ross Perot. I sure do, because it eliminated any chance that President George H.W. Bush and I would prevail over Bill Clinton and Al Gore in 1992. What started as a grass-roots phenomenon ended with 19 percent support at the ballot box -- and a majority of those voters would probably have gone Republican in a two-party race. Speaking on behalf of the Bush-Quayle campaign, to this day we firmly believe that Perot cost the Republican Party the White House.


Republicans have been blindly pushing this argument for nearly 20 years now, acting like George H.W. Bush was all set to win a second term until some crazy Texas billionaire came along and messed it all up. It’s understandable why they like this narrative: it lets them off the hook for losing the public’s confidence in the late ‘80s and early ‘90s -- and casts Clinton’s electoral triumph as an accident of history.

But let me try, one more time, to set the record straight: there is absolutely no rational reason -- none -- to believe that Perot cost Bush and Quayle the 1992 election. To understand why, let’s quickly review what happened in the ’92 campaign.

In the early stages of the race, just after the Gulf War in 1991, Bush looked positively unbeatable. As a result, every big-name Democrat -- Bill Bradley, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Jay Rockefeller and on and on -- backed out. And for the spring and summer of ’91, virtually no other Democrats stepped up to the fill the void. Former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas was the only active candidate until the middle of the summer, and few took him seriously.

But as the Gulf War afterglow faded and the sputtering economy gained more attention, Bush’s popularity returned to earth. Several Democrats, including Clinton, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown, entered the race. And when, in December, Cuomo resisted a last-minute push to recruit him into the race, Clinton emerged as the clear front-runner. He was badly damaged by scandal in early ’92 and nearly overtaken by Tsongas, but by April, Clinton had emerged as the inevitable Democratic nominee.

At that point, he was given little chance of winning, mainly because of the scandals (Gennifer Flowers, draft-dodging and so on). But economic anxiety was widespread, and Bush’s job approval ratings were poisonous. He was a plainly vulnerable incumbent. This is where the Perot phenomenon took hold: With voters initially unwilling to trust Clinton, Perot stepped forward and rocketed to the top of national polls. By the late spring, he led in three-way trial heats, with Clinton lagging in a very distant third place.

Then came the Perot crack-up. Faced with media scrutiny he’d never before experienced, Perot’s erratic, paranoid and even delusional tendencies became evident to the general public. His numbers began to slide. He grew cranky – with the media and with the campaign team he’d assembled. In July, hours before Clinton was to deliver his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, Perot withdrew from the race.

Here the GOP’s “blame Perot” excuse-making falls apart, because immediately after the Democratic convention, Clinton soared ahead of Bush in polls -- by more than 20 points. This was with no Perot in the race. The explanation was obvious: Clinton, after a beautifully choreographed convention, had convinced millions of Americans to give him a second look. It had been clear for months that voters were ready to throw out Bush, but they’d been unwilling to embrace Clinton. After the convention, though, they were.

Clinton’s one-on-one lead over Bush survived for the next 11 weeks. Not a single independent poll after the Democratic convention ever showed Bush leading Clinton – not even immediately after the August ’92 GOP convention (after which Bush temporarily closed the gap, to as few as six points in one poll). By Labor Day, the Bush convention bounce was gone and Clinton was back ahead by double-digits -- a lead that endured all the way through September.

It was then, as October arrived, that Perot jumped back in the race. But his re-emergence didn’t disproportionately hurt Bush -- who, it cannot be emphasized enough, was already being drubbed by Clinton. In a CBS poll on the eve of Perot's re-entry, Clinton led Bush by 13 points in a two-man race – and by 11 in a three-way race. In other words, Clinton’s lead actually declined (very slightly) with Perot back in the mix.

Throughout October, Clinton maintained a steady, commanding advantage over Bush. Three presidential debates were held that month. In the first, Perot stole the show and earned a measurable polling bounce -- from single digits back to double-digits. In the second, Bush was excoriated for glancing at his watch, feeding the impression that he was insufficiently energized and engaged as president; his poll numbers ebbed. In the third, Bush fared better, and by the end of October, he’d pared Clinton’s lead back to the mid- to high- single-digits.

Any last-minute Bush momentum, though, was undermined on the Friday before the election when Iran-Contra independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh indicted Caspar Weinberger, Ronald Reagan’s old Defense secretary – and, in a statement released with the indictment, implicated Bush, who had been dogged for years by questions about his Iran-Contra involvement.

The following Tuesday, Clinton nabbed 43 percent of the vote, good for 370 electoral votes. Bush finished with 37 percent and 168 electoral votes. Perot tallied nearly 20 percent, and exit polls showed that his voters were roughly split evenly on whom their second choice would have been.

In other words, take Perot out of the mix, and Clinton still wins -- handily. The argument of Quayle and other Republicans that Perot cost Bush the election would be more credible if there had been even a single independent poll after the Democratic convention giving Bush the lead over Clinton in a head-to-head race. There never was. Clinton won the race and Bush lost it -- no asterisks needed.

Donate the three books to your community

Readers often ask us what more can be done to get the valuable information they find at Consortiumnews.com to a wider audience.

One way is to take advantage of our 3-for-the-price-of-1 book offer and then to donate the three books - Lost History, Secrecy & Privilege, and Neck Deep - to your community or school library.

If we could get the books into the collections of 1,000 libraries, hundreds of thousands of people would have access to the honest history that the books present - from the Reagan-era scandals of the 1980s to the crimes and abuses under George W. Bush this decade.

For instance, more people would learn the true stories of cocaine trafficking by Ronald Reagan's Nicaraguan contras (in Lost History); George H.W. Bush's dark role in U.S. politics (in Secrecy & Privilege); and George W. Bush's brazen theft of Election 2000 (in Neck Deep).

Now, for a limited time, you can get all three books for only $20, plus $5 for shipping ($25 total). Then, you can contact your local library about placing them in the permanent collection. (If you wish, we can send them to the library directly although it's more effective if a local person donates them.)

Beyond getting this honest history to many more people, we will put $5 from each sale into the coffers of Consortiumnews.com so the Web site can keep publishing important articles by Ray McGovern, Coleen Rowley, Peter Dyer, Lisa Pease and many others.

So help us reach our goal of putting this important three-book set into 1,000 libraries.

All you have to do is send a check for $25 to:

The Media Consortium; 2200 Wilson Blvd.; Suite 102-231; Arlington VA 22201.

And tell us the address for delivering the books.

(Other payment options include sending us your Visa/Mastercard data by mail. Or you can submit your payment as a donation to Consortiumnews.com, but in that case, you must send us an e-mail - to consortnew@aol.com - explaining that you want the payment to go for the 3-for-1 offer and telling us where to ship the books.)

Thanks for your support.

Robert Parry, Editor

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. He founded Consortiumnews.com in 1995 as the Internet's first investigative magazine. He saw it as a way to combine modern technology and old-fashioned journalism to counter the increasing triviality of the mainstream U.S. news media.

Republican VP candidate, congressman Kemp dies

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/02/kemp.obit/

Former Republican VP candidate, congressman Kemp dies
Story Highlights
Jack Kemp, former congressman and vice presidential candidate, dies at 73
Kemp announced in January he was battling cancer
Before politics, Kemp was a professional football quarterback
Kemp also served as secretary of housing and urban development (1989-1993)
5-2-9

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former congressman and Republican vice presidential candidate Jack Kemp died Saturday at age 73 after a battle with cancer, his family announced.

Jack Kemp, a former congressman from New York, was the GOP's vice presidential candidate in 1996.

A onetime professional football player, Kemp served nine terms in Congress as a representative from New York and was former Sen. Bob Dole's running mate in 1996. He was a leading advocate of "supply-side" tax cuts, advancing the argument that cutting taxes would boost economic growth and yield more revenue for the federal government.

"The only way to oppose a bad idea is to replace it with a good idea, and I like to think that I have spent my life trying to promote good ideas," he told CNN in a 1996 interview.

Kemp "passed peacefully into the presence of the Lord" Sunday evening, a family statement said. He disclosed his illness in January.

"During the treatment of his cancer, Jack expressed his gratitude for the thoughts and prayers of so many friends, a gratitude which the Kemp family shares," the family said.

Kemp quarterbacked the Buffalo Bills to back-to-back American Football League championships in 1964 and 1965, before the merger that created the modern NFL. When he retired in 1970 after 13 seasons, the California native ran for Congress and represented the Buffalo area for 18 years in the House of Representatives. View photos of Jack Kemp's life »

"He championed free-market principles that improved the lives of millions of Americans and helped unleash an entrepreneurial spirit that all of us still benefit from today," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement issued late Saturday.

The 1981 tax cuts signed into law by Ronald Reagan, which cut marginal tax rates from 70 percent to 50 percent, bore Kemp's name as a co-sponsor. Critics mocked the policy as "trickle-down" economics and pointed to the decade's growing budget deficits as evidence that supply-side theories didn't work, but it has been GOP orthodoxy ever since.

Kemp mounted an unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988, losing the Republican primaries to George H.W. Bush. But once in office, Bush made Kemp his secretary of housing and urban development -- a post Kemp used to promote what he called an "empowerment" agenda of tax breaks for urban businesses and expanded home ownership.

Unlike many of the other conservatives of his era, Kemp actively courted African-American support. In 1992, he told CNN's "Larry King Live" that the GOP "could be a Lincoln party in terms of attracting black and brown and men and women of color and low-income status and immigrant status who want a shot at the American dream for their children."

Justice David Souter to retire from Supreme Court

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/30/justice.souter.retiring/

Justice David Souter to retire from Supreme Court, source says
Story Highlights
Souter will leave after the current court term recesses in June, source says
Souter's replacement would be President Obama's first Supreme Court appointment
Souter, 69, was tapped by President George H.W. Bush, disappointed conservatives
Souter's departure will leave the two oldest justices still on the bench
4-30-9

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- After more than 18 years on the nation's highest court, Supreme Court Justice David Souter is retiring, a source close to Souter told CNN Thursday.

David Souter has served more than 18 years on the Supreme Court.

Souter will leave after the current court term recesses in June, the source said.

Filling Souter's seat would be President Barack Obama's first Supreme Court appointment -- and the first since George W. Bush's picks of Samuel Alito in 2006 and Chief Justice John Roberts in 2005.

Souter, 69, was tapped for the court by President George H.W. Bush in 1990, but disappointed many conservatives when he turned out to be a typical old-fashioned Yankee Republican -- a moderate, with an independent, even quirky streak.

Souter's departure will leave the two oldest justices -- and the most liberal -- still on the bench. Retirements for John Paul Stevens, 89, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 76, have been rumored for years, with many expecting that one or the other would be the first to give a new Democratic president a Supreme Court vacancy.

Souter's decision came as something of a surprise, although he has long been known to prefer the quiet of his New Hampshire farmhouse to the bustle of the nation's capital.

Harry S. Truman is rolling over in his grave

From Conspiracy Nation ( http://www.shout.net/~bigred/cn.html ):

(Melchizedek Communique, MC031609) Harry S. Truman is rolling over in his grave due to the latest antics of George W. Bush. And a special division of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, charged with response to former presidents rolling over in their graves, is on high alert.

It was Fitzgerald, the mighty U.S. Attorney for Northern Illinois, who had responded earlier when, here in Illinois, Abraham Lincoln had been rolling over in his grave. But this latest restlessness of the deceased Harry S. Truman has stunned even the case-hardened Fitzgerald.

When Harry S. Truman left the White House in 1953, "he had to take out a bank loan to tide him over in private life. He had no official government income or support except for his Army pension of $112.56 a month." But Truman had too much honor to accept any money for "endorsements" and "consultings". Said Truman, "I could never lend myself to any transaction, however respectable, that would commercialize on the prestige and dignity of the office of the presidency." [1]

It was beneath the personal honor of Truman to trade off the presidency for "speaking fees" and such.

Gerald Ford was the first to decide, "What is honor, compared with speaking fees?" Ford cashed in by giving paid speeches and by joining some 20 corporate boards. [1]

Then good old Ronald Reagan soared past Ford in income by trading the prestige of the U.S. presidency for $2 million annually. [1]

Along came George H.W. Bush, father of "Dubya" Bush. "Poppy" Bush raked in $$$ millions on the lecture circuit, after he left office in 1993. [1]

"Bill Clinton, though," notices The Week magazine, "has taken the moneymaking ability of ex-presidents to a new level." Today (Nov. 2008), "thanks to thousands of speeches, lucrative consulting jobs, and book advances and royalties, he and Hillary are worth more than $100 million." [1]

Who says the U.S. presidency isn't for sale?

Asked in November 2008 about his plans, Dubya Bush replied, "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers." [1] Now, in an update ironically titled, "Replenishing the ol' coffers", The Week magazine reveals that George W. Bush "announced he was launching an international speaking tour." The Dubya Bush Replenishing The Ol' Coffers International Speaking Tour is scheduled to begin tomorrow, March 17th (St. Patrick's Day), in Canada. [2]

It is not known if Dubya Bush will be guzzling Jim Beam whisky during the tour. It has been rumored ol' Dubya has been hitting the sauce pretty hard. [3]

The special division of Patrick Fitzgerald's Rolling Over In Their Graves department is on high alert. Harry S. Truman could not be reached for comment.
------- Sources -------
[1] "Briefing: Life after the White House", The Week magazine, Nov. 21, 2008, p. 15
[2] "Replenishing the ol' coffers", from "Good Week For" section of The Week magazine, March 20, 2009, p. 6
[3] Melchizedek Communique MC022809
http://www.shout.net/~bigred/mc022809.html

Lifting image ban respects war dead

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/26/begleiter.dover/

Commentary: Lifting image ban respects war dead
Story Highlights
Ralph J. Begleiter: U.S. policy on photographing war dead was result of coincidence
He says it was due to split-screen image of president joking while coffins returning
Begleiter: New policy allows the nation to pay proper respect to war dead
He urges government to resume using its photographers to document the toll
By Ralph J. Begleiter
Special to CNN
2-26-9

Editor's note: Ralph J. Begleiter teaches communication, journalism and political science at the University of Delaware. During two decades as CNN's "world affairs correspondent," Begleiter was the network's most widely traveled reporter.

Ralph J. Begleiter says the Pentagon's new policy on media access to coffins of war dead is a milestone.

NEWARK, Delaware (CNN) -- The reversal of two decades of policy on images of returning war casualties is an important and welcome milestone for the American people.

The Pentagon's decision announced Thursday allowing media coverage of coffins of war victims returning to Dover Air Force Base -- if families agree -- restores to its rightful, honorable place the immense value of the sacrifice American troops make on behalf of their nation. It allows the American people to honor the dignified and respectful return of war casualties to home soil for the last time.

Although no one should have a veto over the nation's ability to pay respects to its fallen troops, I believe most families will decide that their sons and daughters deserve to be recognized publicly for their sacrifice.

These men and women enlisted in the military for their nation. They fought for their nation. They died for their nation. Their return should be respectfully and publicly acknowledged by their nation.

The ban on images of returning casualties started accidentally, and without any reference to the "privacy" of the families of those who gave their lives in service to the nation.

The accident of media history occurred in December 1989 when poor White House scheduling placed President George H.W. Bush before live television cameras just as the first American casualties were arriving at Dover Air Force Base from the U.S. invasion of Panama.

CNN and two other major TV networks fired up their split-screen technology, showing on one side the president joking with White House reporters just before the Christmas holiday -- and on the other the sober images of flag-draped military caskets being carried ceremoniously by honor guards across the tarmac at Dover.

After the holidays, the president appealed publicly to reporters to "help me" overcome a public impression that he had been insensitive on TV about the returning casualties.

News media had been covering the return of war casualties since World War II. Some military personnel believe the showing of those images -- and others from the jungles of Vietnam -- contributed to a gradual growth of anti-war sentiment during the 1960s.

Just days before the Gulf War began in January 1991, the new media policy was formalized in a cable sent by the Defense Department to its posts: There would be no media coverage of returning casualties at Dover or other stops along the way home.

The directive made no mention of anyone's privacy but portrayed the ban on coverage of returning casualties as an effort to ease pressure on stressed families, who might feel obliged to travel to Dover to witness the return of their loved one with news media watching.

Over the next decade, several exceptions were made to the ban on media coverage at Dover, including for the return of Navy personnel killed in the bombing of the USS Cole off Yemen's coast, just weeks before the election that brought the second President Bush into office.

Ironically, throughout the ban on media coverage of returning casualties, the Pentagon continued documenting this important part of any war by assigning military and government contract photographers to take pictures of the flag-draped caskets.

Those images, among the most poignant, respectful and dignified tributes to troops who died in service of their nation, were carefully maintained by the Defense Department. They were used for training of honor guards and for commemorating the significance of war casualties.

Although taken by the government, those images were withheld from public view.

From the aftermath of September 11, 2001, through the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, the Pentagon kept taking those pictures even as it expanded its ban on media coverage of returning casualties -- now arguing that such war images would somehow invade the privacy of families of the deceased troops.

It was those images that a series of Freedom of Information Act requests pried loose in 2005 after months of legal skirmishing.

(Those requests were initiated by Russ Kick, editor of a Web site called "The Memory Hole."

When the Pentagon refused to respond substantively to my own series of Freedom of Information Act requests, the National Security Archive at George Washington University and I took the government to court with a lawsuit over the images.)

Just weeks before a federal judge was expected to rule in the case, the Pentagon pre-empted a precedent-setting order by releasing voluntarily more than 700 images of returning casualties. They remain to this day available to the public on the National Security Archive Web site.

At the time Kick and I were seeking to make the Pentagon's pictures public, major U.S. news organizations were busy suiting up to cover the invasion of Iraq; they did not engage their lawyers to ask for access to Dover to witness the return of those who sacrificed their lives in the war and they have declined to do so since then.

The Pentagon policy, which had come into being over the embarrassment of a president, evolved after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, into a complete ban preventing the American people from seeing the most important single measure of the cost of war.

So desperate, apparently, was the White House desire to block public view of such images that military photographers at Dover were ordered to stop documenting the returns. To my knowledge, since 2005, no further photos have been taken showing those emotional moments when a casualty touches home soil for the last time.

The Obama administration's reversal of two decades of policy on the visibility of returning casualties should have two immediate effects:

The military should resume immediately documenting with its photographers the honorable return of war casualties -- and making those images public. That public documentation by the government should not be subject to anyone's veto.

The news media should be able, once again, to document independently this important moment in the history of any American war, subject to the new policy's provision for a family veto over "media" coverage.

Public opinion -- consistently supportive of making the war casualty images public -- has reached a new high. Most recently, a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey released Thursday reported that 67 percent of those questioned said they think the government should allow the public to see photos of caskets of U.S. troops at an Air Force base.

I have had the privilege of speaking with a number of family members who have lost loved ones in Afghanistan or Iraq. Most think the pictures should be public, but only after families authorize it.

This dramatic change in government policy should once again allow all Americans to see the full human cost of war, while paying respect to those who served their nation as well as to their families.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ralph J. Begleiter.

Yale & Geronimo's Skull

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/17/geronimos-great-grandson-asks-yale-fraternity-return-ancestors-skull/

Geronimo's Great Grandson Asks Yale Secret Society to Return Ancestor's Skull
The great grandson of Geronimo says he wants to know whether Skull and Bones secret society at Yale University has the remains of the famous Apache chief and shaman.
By Stephen Clark
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, February 17, 2009

It's the stuff of legends: an elite secret society that includes what would become some of the most powerful men of the 20th century allegedly invading the grave of an Apache chief to steal his skull for fraternal rituals. It's also the stuff of a new lawsuit filed Tuesday by descendents of that Apache chief.

On the 100th anniversary of the death of Geronimo, 20 of his blood relatives have asked the courts to force Yale University and the school's secret organization, Skull and Bones, to release his remains for return to his native land and a proper burial.

The lawsuit also names President Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Army Secretary Pete Geren as defendants because they are responsible for maintaining Geronimo's remains on a U.S. Army base in Oklahoma, the group said.

"I believe it's a good cause because indigenous people over the century have been annihilated, removed from their homeland," said Geronimo's great grandson, Harlyn Geronimo, at a press conference in Washington, D.C.

Skull and Bones has never said whether any of Geronimo's remains are in its possession. The descendants say they are investigating long-held claims that in 1918, members of Skull and Bones, including Prescott Bush, the father of George H.W Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush, invaded Geronimo's grave at Ft. Sill and stole his skull, some bones and other items buried with him.

"In this lawsuit, we're going to find out if the bones are there or not," said the group's lawyer, said the group's lawyer, Ramsey Clark, who was attorney general in President Lyndon Johnson's administration.

Gila Reinstein, a spokeswoman for Yale University, said she is unaware of the lawsuit, but Yale can add nothing to the mystery of the Indian chief's whereabouts.

"To the best of my knowledge, Yale University has no relics or bones belonging to Geronimo," she said, adding that she couldn't speak on behalf of Skull and Bones because it is independent of the university.

Geronimo fought for decades against Mexican and American expansion into tribal lands. He and his small band of Apaches surrendered to U.S. troops in 1886 and were sent to Florida as prisoners of war before being transferred to Alabama.

Five years later, he was sent to Ft. Sill, where he lived the rest of his life as a free-range prisoner. Geronimo became a celebrity in the twilight of his life, appearing at fairs and selling souvenirs and photographs of himself. He died of pneumonia in 1909 at Ft. Sill and was buried at the Apache Indian Prisoner of War Cemetery on the military base.

Three members of the Skull and Bones, including Prescott Bush, served as Army volunteers at Fort Sill during World War I. They are accused of stealing the items which supposedly are used in initiation ceremonies. One alleged ritual includes kissing Geronimo's skull.

Geronimo said he's bringing the lawsuit now after contemplating it over the past decade because he has the time to do it after retiring from a tribal council in 2000. Clark added that at the 100th anniversary of the shaman's death, "We really thought it would be a good time to say enough is enough."

Geronimo said he has appealed to former President Bush for help in returning the remains.

"According to our traditions the remains of this sort, especially in this state when the grave was desecrated, need to be reburied with the proper rituals to return the dignity and let his spirits rest in peace."

Asked why he didn't appeal to Obama first, Geronimo said he thought Obama may be too busy to heed his request.

Beast of the Month - June 2008

Beast of the Month - June 2008
Robert Gates, Defense Secretary

"I yam an anti-Christ..."
John Lydon (aka Johnny Rotten) of The Sex Pistols, "Anarchy in the UK"

"But they got a lot of forks n' knives,
And they gotta cut somethin'."
Bob Dylan, "Talkin' New York"

Was it really five years ago that George W. Bush pranced on an aircraft like a member of the Village People with "Mission Accomplished" boastfully on full display in the background? Why, it only seems like yesterday. Then again, that's just to us at the Konformist, writing about it from our air-conditioned office. Somehow we suspect to the troops that are stuck in Iraq, it has seemed like way too long already.

Deservedly, Iraq is the albatross around the neck of George W. Bush and the GOP. The numbers speak for themselves: over 4,000 dead and 30,000 wounded, and that's just among American soldiers. Among the Iraqi population, the numbers are more shocking. The website Iraq Body Count lists the total number of deaths at over 90,000, yet that number is admitted to be an understatement by IBC itself, as it includes only deaths mentioned in media reports. How much is it an understatement? In October 2006, a survey published by the respected British medical journal Lancet estimated the death toll to be 655,000, with an upper estimate of 943,000. The survey was lambasted by the political establishment and ignored by the mainstream media, even though the survey was done with the normal scientific methodology in estimating war deaths that has never been disputed in the past. Two reports of surveys by Opinion Research Business, published in September 2007 and January 2008, seemed not only to confirm the Lancet numbers but imply they were underestimates. Both reports by the ORB estimated the total deaths to be over a million, one with an upper estimate of over 1.4 million. Whether it is 1.4 million, 655K or even 90 grand, the butchery in Iraq is a mass murder that has turned Team USA increasingly into an international pariah. (Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo haven't helped in this regard.)

Of course, blood is cheap, especially when we're dealing with the blood of dead Iraqis. In dollars, how costly has the Iraq War been? To the US government, direct costs to the US Treasury after five years is $845 billion, but this is also a gross understatement. Noble Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has calculated the actual costs of the Iraq War to be $3 trillion dollars. This number, he admits, understates the total as well: when adding interest on debt and future borrowing, the price of a continued military presence in Iraq and lifetime health-care costs for veterans, Iraq may cost up to $7 trillion. Meanwhile, WWII, even adjusted for inflation, cost an estimated $5 trillion. Suddenly, Iraq isn't just an albatross around Bush and the Republican's neck: it's the albatross for the entire US economy.

Still, while the albatross metaphor for Iraq is very fitting for the Bush Administration, The Konformist prefers to think of it as the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine for Bushco. After all, had it not been for that darn Iraq War (and its mangy mutt) Bush and his minions would've gotten away with it all, and they'd still be treated with pathetic fawning by the korporate media. But now Shaggy and the gang have pulled the mask off, and Donald "Redrum" Rumsfeld is no longer the snuggly guy who seems so lovable when he repeatedly uses the word "kill" during press conferences.

To his credit, Bush got the clue: after the GOP got drubbed in the 2006 election, he immediately fired Rummy's ass as Pentagon chief and replaced him with Robert Gates, The Konformist Beast of the Month. Replacing Rumsfeld with Gates - an Iran-Contra figure who served as CIA Director under George H. W. Bush - was a classic Dubya move: when in doubt, go to your daddy's friends to bail you out. And on a superficial level, Gates has been an improvement of Redrum. But in reality, Gates is more like "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss."

Specifically, Gates has implemented a strategy of more of the same. This is the essence of "the surge" in Iraq, the plan of adding US troops to Iraq in January 2007, increasing the total from 132,000 to 168,000. Led by GOP prez candidate John McCain, a mantra talking point of the GOP is that "the surge is working" - a talking point that the Democrats have predictably been unwilling to challenge. It's a pretty easy assertion to reply to: 2007 was the deadliest year for US troops in Iraq since the war began (with 899 dead) and, according to the Iraq Ministry of Health, the bloodiest year for the Iraqi people. But even if one ignores the death toll again, in perhaps the greatest measure of success or failure, the surge has not helped bring about an endgame plan for Iraq, even five years after Bush first boasted "Mission Accomplished" to great fanfare.

The surge brings up another important issue: US troops do no grow magically on trees. How is the US military going to keep getting soldiers when it already promises to get G.I. Joe stuck in one long pointless war, with another one planned in Iran? Legislation proposed by populist Senator Jim Webb of Virginia offered one possibility: modeled after the WWII GI Bill, it would guarantee a complete scholarship for service members to any in-state public university. It would require only a three year commitment for the benefits to kick in. Needless to say, the DOD opposed the bill, claiming it would do more damage in reducing retention levels than it would in luring more recruits. In other words, the Pentagon believes it can trap more poor working class kids in the military by keeping the benefits lower and limiting their options than it could by offering them deserved rewards for their patriotism. Tellingly, Bush has already threatened to veto the bill, and it is opposed by McCain as well.

Of course, even without the Iraq War, the US military has become a massive drain on the US economy thanks to the post-9/11 defense buildup hysteria. The 2007 DOD budget was $500 billion, and that doesn't include the $170 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Meanwhile, Robert Higgs (who, it should be noted, is a conservative economist with ties to the Hoover Institute rather than a progressive with an axe to grind) added the costs of the DOE for nuclear weapons and environmental cleanup, Department of Veteran Affairs and Homeland Security, and costs within the State Department, DOJ, Treasury and NASA that are really defense spending, along with over $200 billion in net interest. He concluded that the actual 2007 defense budget is over one trillion dollars.

Don't expect that to end in 2009: McCain certainly isn't interested in cutting bloated defense spending, and neither are Obama or Hillary. Don't expect the Iraq fiasco to end any time soon either: McCain has stated he doesn't see troops returning from Baghdad until 2013. To his credit, at least he's being honest. Jack Keane, a retired four-star general and co-creator of the surge strategy, is, according to a New York Sun interview, convinced Hillary "would hold off on authorizing a large-scale immediate withdrawal of American soldiers from Iraq." As he has worked with her since 2001, he is an insider who knows what he's talking about, and is hardly making the claim as an attack. Meanwhile, though Obama has made his claim to fame by opposing the Iraq War (even though he did while serving a primarily African-American state Senate district, which hardly made it a daring position) former advisor Samantha Power admitted that his 16-month "plan" to withdraw troops from Iraq is a "best case scenario" in a BBC interview. (There is reason to believe it was this - and not calling Hillary a "monster" - that forced her "resignation" from the Obama campaign.) So much for Democrats as an anti-war party.

In any case, we salute Robert Gates as Beast of the Month. Congratulations, and keep up the great work, Bobby!!!

Sources:

Bumiller, Elisabeth. "McCain Sees Troops Coming Home by 2013." New York Times 15 May 2008 <http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/15/mccain-troops-may-be-home-by-2013>.

Burnham, Gilbert, Lafta, Riyadh, Doocy, Shannon and Roberts, Les. "Mortality After the 2003 Invasion of Iraq." The Lancet 11 October 2006.

Doster, Adam. "December Gains Promising, but 2007 Was Deadliest Year in Iraq. The Raw Story 1 January 2008 <http://rawstory.com/news/2007/December_gains_encourgaing_but_2007_deadliest_0101.html>.

Griffis, Margaret. "Casualties in Iraq." Antiwar.com <http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/>.

Hall, Kevin G. "Nobel Laureate Estimates Wars' Cost at More Than $3 Trillion." McClatchy Newspapers 27 February 2008 <http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/28891.html>.

Higgs, Robert. "The Trillion-Dollar Defense Budget Is Already Here." The Independent Institute 15 March 2007 <http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1941>.

Iraq Body Count. <http://www.iraqbodycount.org/>.

"Iraq Coalition Casualty Count." iCasualties <http://icasualties.org/>.

Lake, Eli. "Clinton's Hawkishness Ruffles Feathers in Obama Camp." New York Sun 4 March 2008 <http://www.nysun.com/article/72209.>

"More Than 1,000,000 Iraqis Murdered." Opinion Research Business September 2007 <http://www.opinion.co.uk/Newsroom_details.aspx?NewsId=78>.

"Pentagon Balks at New G.I. Education Bill." CBS News 13 May 2008 <http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/13/national/main4091040.shtml>.

Smith, Ben. "Power on Obama's Iraq Plan: 'Best Case Scenario.'" Politico 7 March 2008 <http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Power_on_Obamas_Iraq_plan_best_case_scenario.html>.

Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Bilmes, Linda J. The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008

Trotta, Daniel. "Iraq War Hits U.S. Economy: Nobel Winner." Reuter 2 March 2008 <http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2921527420080302>.

"2007 Becomes Deadliest Yet for U.S. in Iraq." MSNBC 6 November 2007 <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21650614/>.

"Update on Iraqi Casualty Data." Opinion Research Business January 2008.

Waldman, Paul. "The Colossus." The American Prospect 31 January 2008 <http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_colossus>.

Obama attacks US Supreme Court decision

http://wsws.org/articles/2008/jun2008/obam-j26.shtml

Obama attacks US Supreme Court decision barring death penalty for child rape
By Patrick Martin
26 June 2008

In an action that combines cynical political opportunism and outright reaction, Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, has publicly denounced Wednesday’s decision by the US Supreme Court outlawing the execution of people convicted of child rape.

The 5-4 majority, comprised of the four court liberals and conservative Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the decision, held that the death penalty could only be applied for crimes in which the victim was killed. The court noted that only 6 states out of 50 permitted capital punishment for child rape, and held that this demonstrated a social consensus against such executions.

Commenting on the decision, Obama declared his support for the death penalty, both in principle and in the specific cases under consideration by the high court. “I have said repeatedly that I think that the death penalty should be applied in very narrow circumstances for the most egregious of crimes,” he told a news conference in Chicago. “I think that the rape of a small child, six or eight years old, is a heinous crime and if a state makes a decision that under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that that does not violate our Constitution.”

The Democratic presidential candidate argued that the high court had gone too far in restricting the powers of the states. If the court had “said we want to constrain the abilities of states to do this to make sure that it’s done in a careful and appropriate way, that would have been one thing. But it basically had a blanket prohibition and I disagree with that decision.”

This line of argument dovetails with the dissenting opinion of Justice Samuel Alito, signed by the other three arch-reactionaries on the court, Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, which was based largely on states’ rights. Alito wrote: “The harm that is caused to the victims and to society at large by the worst child rapists is grave. It is the judgment of the Louisiana lawmakers and those in an increasing number of other states that these harms justify the death penalty. The court provides no cogent explanation why this legislative judgment should be overridden.”

Obama’s line-up with the four most right-wing justices is in stark contrast to his response last week when an identical 5-4 majority ruled against the Bush administration and upheld the habeas corpus rights of prisoners held at Guantánamo in the name of the “war on terror.” Obama supported the majority, while his Republican opponent sided with the conservative minority. On the death penalty case, Obama and McCain came down on the same side.

During his years in the Illinois legislature Obama supported the death penalty, seeking only to limit it to the most heinous cases and to reduce the number of cases where innocent people were prosecuted, convicted and sent to death row.

In his most recent book, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote, “I believe there are some crimes—mass murder, the rape and murder of a child—so heinous, so beyond the pale, that the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage by meting out the ultimate punishment.” Obama’s statement Wednesday goes considerably beyond this, and must reflect his political calculations about the upcoming presidential election, and beyond.

Press commentary presented Obama’s statement as a deft political move that avoided a repetition of the supposedly disastrous stand taken by the Democratic presidential candidate 20 years ago, Michael Dukakis. During a debate with Republican George H.W. Bush, Dukakis was asked whether he would maintain his opposition to the death penalty even if his wife Kitty were raped and murdered. Dukakis said that he would, and came under ferocious attack from the Republican Party and the media as a result.

A nearer example for Obama, however, is the notorious conduct of Bill Clinton during the 1992 Democratic primary campaign, when he rushed back to Arkansas from the campaign trail to sign the death warrant for a mentally retarded black man, Ricky Lee Rector, who was subsequently executed. Clinton’s display of cold-bloodedness was an important episode in demonstrating to the American ruling elite that he would stop at nothing to defend their interests.

Obama faces somewhat similar circumstances as Clinton did in 1992—he enters the general election campaign with a lead in the polls, and seeks to assuage doubts in decisive sections of the ruling class about his ruthlessness and determination. Since he is not in an executive position like Clinton, who was governor of Arkansas when he first ran for president, Obama can demonstrate his willingness to shed blood only indirectly, by attacking the Supreme Court death penalty decision.

Wednesday’s decision was the first Supreme Court ruling in more than 30 years on whether a crime other than murder can be grounds for capital punishment. In its 1977 decision in Coker v. Georgia, the court ruled the death penalty for rape unconstitutional in the case of a 16-year-old victim, but left open the possibility that the death penalty could be applied in cases where the victim was younger.

Louisiana became the first state to adopt such a death penalty provision in 1995, and two men have been convicted and sentenced to death. Both these sentences were set aside in the latest decision, Kennedy v. Louisiana. Five other states—Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Montana—have enacted similar laws, but no one has yet been convicted or sentenced under them.

The Supreme Court majority cited both constitutional and practical reasons for overturning the Louisiana law. The opinion written by Justice Kennedy declared, “The constitutional prohibition against excessive or cruel and unusual punishments mandates that the State’s power to punish be exercised within the limits of civilized standards.... The incongruity between the crime of child rape and the harshness of the death penalty poses risks of overpunishment and counsels against a constitutional ruling that the death penalty can be expanded to include this offense.”

Among the other concerns Kennedy cited were that extending the death penalty “may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim,” that such cases would involve “the special risks of unreliable testimony” from child victims, and that the sheer number of reported child rapes—5,702 in 2005 alone—would overwhelm the court system if the death penalty were at issue.

The Louisiana case demonstrates many of these problems. The man facing the death penalty, Patrick Kennedy, was convicted of raping his stepdaughter when she was eight years old. The child originally said that she had been assaulted by two neighborhood teenagers, but changed her story six years after the event and identified her stepfather as the perpetrator. Kennedy maintains his innocence.

Obama’s rush to embrace the right-wing minority on the Supreme Court is a clear demonstration of his political trajectory. Having become the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee—and given the overwhelming popular hostility to the Bush administration and the Republican Party, in a strong position to win the White House—he is moving rapidly to the right, seeking to demonstrate his reliability and fitness to govern from the standpoint of the financial aristocracy that really rules America.

In this context, the most pernicious role is played by those who bolster illusions in the “progressive” character of Obama and Democratic Party, even as their right-wing orientation is openly displayed. This is the stance taken by the Nation, the weekly liberal magazine whose web site has published a grotesquely distorted defense of Obama’s death penalty comments. The magazine’s Washington correspondent, John Nichols, writes:

“It ought to come as no surprise that, while McCain rushed to exploit the Supreme Court decision for political purposes, Obama was circumspect. He recognizes that the raw emotions associated with cases of this kind do not lend themselves to reasoned debate. And, while a Feingold might recognize this as a teaching moment, Obama is a more cautious player. But, on matters such as this, there is something to be said for a cautious response.”

No matter how far to the right Obama goes, liberal apologists like the Nation will find words to justify and excuse him. That is a measure of their own prostration before the American ruling class.

The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/02/22/ST2008022200029.html

February 22nd, 2008
The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists
By Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum / Washington Post

For years, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has railed against lobbyists and the influence of "special interests" in Washington, touting on his campaign Web site his fight against "the 'revolving door' by which lawmakers and other influential officials leave their posts and become lobbyists for the special interests they have aided."

But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington's lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.

Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O' Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.

McCain's relationship with lobbyists became an issue this week after it was reported that his aides asked Vicki Iseman, a telecom lobbyist, to distance herself from his 2000 presidential campaign because it would threaten McCain's reputation for independence. An angry and defiant McCain denounced the stories yesterday, declaring: "At no time have I ever done anything that would betray the public trust."

Even before McCain finished his news conference, uber-lobbyist Black made the rounds of television networks to defend McCain against charges that he has been tainted by his relationship with a lobbyist. Black's current clients include General Motors, United Technologies, JPMorgan and AT&T.

Black said he is still being paid by his firm and does work for clients in his "spare time," recusing himself from lobbying McCain: "I not only do not lobby him [McCain], but if an issue comes up that I have a client on, I will tell him that and stay out of the discussion."

A common career path for political operatives is a lucrative job at a Washington lobbying firm that allows them to continue campaign work, and McCain is hardly the first candidate to draw on that talent pool. The campaign of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has been aided by lobbyists Harold Ickes and Mark Penn, who heads Burson Marsteller Worldwide. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has been advised by former senator Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who is not a registered lobbyist but advises clients about Washington.

In McCain's case, the fact that lobbyists are essentially running his presidential campaign -- most of them as volunteers -- seems to some people to be at odds with his anti-lobbying rhetoric. "He has a closer relationship with lobbyists than he lets on," said Melanie Sloan of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The problem for McCain being so closely associated with lobbyists is that he's the candidate most closely associated with attacking lobbyists."

Davis did not respond to requests for an interview. Black, acting as a campaign spokesman, said that Davis is being paid neither by his firm nor by the McCain campaign, and has not been a registered lobbyist for three years.

Schmidt and McKinnon said they remain with their firms, but are not lobbyists and have recused themselves from the issues of their clients in the McCain campaign. "I've never discussed a client issue with the candidate or his staff," McKinnon said in an e-mail.

Campaign finance experts said employees of a company are allowed to volunteer for a campaign as long as they do so on their own time, or continue to perform the functions for which their employers are paying them.

McCain's reliance on lobbyists for key jobs -- both in the Senate and in his presidential campaign -- extends beyond his inner circle. McCain recently hired Mark Buse to be his Senate chief of staff. Buse led the Commerce Committee staff in the late 1990s and early 2000s, and was until last fall a lobbyist for ML Strategies, representing eBay, Goldman Sachs Group, Cablevision, Tenneco and Novartis Pharmaceuticals.

McCain's top fundraising official is former congressman Tom Loeffler (R-Tex.), who heads a lobbying law firm called the Loeffler Group. He has counseled the Saudis as well as Southwest Airlines, AT&T, Toyota and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Public Citizen, a group that monitors campaign fundraising, has found that McCain has more bundlers -- people who gather checks from networks of friends and associates -- from the lobbying community than any other presidential candidate from either party.

By the group's current count, McCain has at least 59 federal lobbyists raising money for his campaign, compared with 33 working for Republican Rudolph W. Giuliani and 19 working for Democrat Clinton.

"The potential harm is that should Senator McCain become elected, those people will have a very close relationship with the McCain White House," Sloan said. "[That] would be very helpful for their clients, and that would give them a leg up on everybody else."

Of all the lobbyists involved in the McCain campaign, the most prominent is Black, who has made a lucrative career of shuttling back and forth between presidential politics and big-time Washington lobbying. He has worked for the campaigns of former congressman Jack Kemp (N.Y.), former president George H.W. Bush and former senators Phil Gramm (Tex.) and Robert J. Dole (Kan.), all Republicans.

"I've spent a fair amount of my life as a lobbyist, but I've spent a majority of my adult life running Republican political campaigns," Black, 60, said.

His relationship with McCain, for whom he is a senior adviser, goes back more than two decades, from the time McCain first came to Washington. They got to know each other well during Gramm's 1996 presidential run; Gramm, now an investment banker, is a major supporter and adviser to McCain.

But even as Black provides a private voice and a public face for McCain, he also leads his lobbying firm, which offers corporate interests and foreign governments the promise of access to the most powerful lawmakers. Some of those companies have interests before the Senate and, in particular, the Commerce Committee, of which McCain is a member.

Black said he does a lot of his work by telephone from McCain's Straight Talk Express bus.

He said, however, the combination now requires that he work on weekends, which means 80- or even 90-hour weeks. If McCain were to ask him to step up his commitment to the campaign during the general-election battle, Black said he would take a leave or a reduced salary from BKSH and devote himself to electing McCain president.

McCain has long sought to defend his associations with lobbyists, stressing that friendships with them do not influence his independent judgment when it comes to legislative action. In comments to reporters yesterday, he acknowledged those friendships.

"I have many friends who represent various interests, ranging from the firemen to the police to senior citizens to various interests, particularly before my committee," McCain said. "The question is . . . do they have excess or unwarranted influence? And certainly no one ever has in my conduct of my public life and conduct of my legislative agenda."

Staff writer Glenn Kessler, research editor Alice Crites and washingtonpost.com staff writer Chris Cillizza contributed to this report.

Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security

http://rense.com/general80/d2es.htm

Obama's Plan To Privatize Social Security
Jeffrey Liebman Of Harvard, Top Economics Advisor To Obama, Wants To Privatize Social Security - Just Like The Sinister Bush Plan Americans Resoundingly Rejected In 2005. Benefits Cuts And Higher Payroll Taxes Are Also On Obama's Agenda.
By Webster Tarpley
2-6-8

Liebman has supported partial PRIVATIZATION of the government-run retirement system, an idea that is rejected by many Democrats and bears a similarity to a proposal for so-called "personal investment accounts" that Bush promoted in 2005.

"Liebman has been open to private accounts," said Michael Tanner, a Social Security expert at the Cato Institute in Washington, a think tank in Washington that advocates "free markets" and often backs Republicans.

The Liebman-MacGuineas-Samwick plan to loot Social Security also promises raising regressive payroll taxes, cutting benefits, or a combination of both.

OBAMA'S DOUBLE TALK ON SOCIAL SECURITY: "Everything should be on the table." (May 2007) This leaves the door wide open to Liebman's privatization plan.

WARN OLDER PEOPLE AND RETIREES THAT OBAMA AND HIS CLIQUE OF WEALTHY ELITIST BACKERS WANT TO TAKE THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY PENSIONS AWAY

* OBAMA ECONOMIC ADVISER DAVID CUTLER ARGUES THAT HIGH HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE ECONOMICALLY DESIRABLE
Another Obama adviser who targets health care is David Cutler, a Harvard economist. Cutler wrote an article for the New England Journal of Medicine in 2006 asserting that "The rising cost ... of health care has been the source of a lot of saber rattling in the media and the public square, without anyone seriously analyzing the benefits gained."

Cutler advocates improving healthcare through financial incentives, meaning that he wants to increase cash flow into the hands of rapacious pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

* OBAMA'S TOP ECONOMICS GURU: AUSTAN "THE GHOUL" GOOLSBEE ­ SKULL AND BONES ALUM, FRIEDMANITE CHICAGO BOY, FANATICAL FREE TRADE GLOBALIZER

Barack Obama's top economics adviser is a member of the super-secret Skull & Bones society of Yale University (Class of 1991), of which George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush, and failed elitist John Kerry are also members. Goolsbee is widely reported to have told Obama not to back a compulsory freeze on home mortgage foreclosures to help the struggling middle class in the current depression crisis, as demanded by former candidate John Edwards. Hillary Clinton has advocated a one-year voluntary freeze on foreclosures. Obama has offered counselors to comfort mortgage victims as they are dispossessed, citing the "moral hazard" of protecting the public interest from Wall Street sharks.

George Will, in an October 2007 Washington Post column saluted Goolsbee's "nuanced understanding" of traditional Democratic issues like globalization and income inequality; he "seems to be the sort of fellow -- amiable, empirical, and reasonable--you would want at the elbow of a Democratic president, if such there must be," wrote the arch-oligarchical apologist Will.

Austan Goolsbee (Obama's likely Secretary of the Treasury): "I'm a University of Chicago economist and no one is ever going to be more in favor of open markets and free trade than an economist, so you would presume I'd be for anything that has the words 'free trade agreement' in it and all I'll tell you is this: I do believe there's no one more in favor of open markets than me . . ."

As one reactionary Yale alum gushed: ". . .voters who usually lean Republican should take a second look at Obama ... Although some of his centrist economic prescriptions may disenchant liberals who distrust the benefits of globalization, Goolsbee said economic data indicate that free trade leads to higher wages."Goolsbee is almost certainly the unnamed advisor Paul Krugman refers to when he scores Obama's stimulus plan as "disreputable". Goolsbee is a bitter opponent of a single-payer system, and has attacked Michael Moore's movie Sicko on this issue.

Krugman: "The Obama campaign's initial response to the latest wave of bad economic news was, I'm sorry to say, disreputable: Mr. Obama's top economic adviser claimed that the long-term tax-cut plan the candidate announced months ago is just what we need to keep the slump from "morphing into a drastic decline in consumer spending." Hmm: claiming that the candidate is all-seeing, and that a tax cut originally proposed for other reasons is also a recession-fighting measure - doesn't that sound familiar?...Mr. Obama came out with a real stimulus plan. As was the case with his health care plan, which fell short of universal coverage, his stimulus proposal is similar to those of the other Democratic candidates, but tilted to the right. " (NYT, Jan. 14, 2008)

DON'T BE FOOLED BY OBAMA'S SOARING RHETORIC ­ CHECK OUT HIS RIGHT-WING ADVISORS

Culling the herd

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2757.shtml

Culling the herd
By Sheila Samples
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Dec 19, 2007

"Everything you can imagine is real" --Pablo Picasso

In 1974, a year after orchestrating a mass terror bombing of Cambodia -- after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize -- Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his National Security Council completed “National Security Study Memo 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests.” This document, whose sharp edges are dulled by page after leaden page of how to reduce overpopulation in the Third World through birth control and "other" population-reduction programs, was classified until 1989, but was almost immediately accepted as US policy, and remains the US blueprint for ethnic cleansing today.

It is difficult to imagine the staggering number of innocent humans who have perished through war or famine as a direct result of Kissinger's half-century obsession with, and lust for, genocide. It's even more difficult to imagine the cruel indifference with which Kissinger, and those like him in positions of political and corporate power -- the elite -- continue to plan the elimination of millions, even billions. All under the guise of national security, or to spread freedom . . . democracy . . .

Kissinger targeted a number of "key countries" whose populations, he said, must be curtailed and controlled lest they gain economic, political and military strength, and thus threaten US strategic interests. "Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World," Kissinger said, "because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries.”

Then, as now, any nation refusing to surrender its natural resources was an ominous threat to our national security and was dealt with initially through birth control and other population-reduction programs such as food rationing. But that was too slow for Kissinger, for Brent Scowcroft who replaced Kissinger as national security adviser and was put in charge of thinning out the Third World population, and for his eager enabler, CIA Director George H.W. Bush who trotted like a love-starved puppy at Kissinger's heels for decades.

At first, they used food as "an instrument of national power" to coerce the dumb masses to stop copulating and populating, and then as a deadly weapon because widespread famine not only dealt death quicker, but it was cost-effective. And it made more sense. Like Kissinger said, "To give food aid to a country just because they [sic] are starving is a pretty weak reason."

If we could imagine the suffering endured by victims of such perverse inhumanity, we might feel a twinge of outrage or, as George Washington so succinctly put it, a "little spark of celestial fire called conscience." Or not. Perhaps we are so far removed from reality because our minds cannot grasp the horror of that reality. Those who seek to destroy the denizens of this planet are totally without compassion or remorse. They are grotesque mutants who kill indiscriminately in their relentless drive for world conquest and domination.

It's naive to think the carnage will stop once predators such as Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Robert McNamara, George H.W. Bush, and other One World advocates, many of whom are in their 80s or 90s, are no longer in our midst. With the release of thousands of tons of depleted uranium in both Bush Gulf wars and Afghanistan, they have poisoned food, water and air, and turned the entire region into massive radioactive death camps. Without fear of accountability, they have ensured the slow, agonizing extermination of entire populations, to include the American military, whom Kissinger views as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" -- and their families -- that will continue for many generations.

We're like herds of cattle, grazing placidly, unable or unwilling to imagine that we might share the same fate as the millions throughout the Third World targeted by the elite as "bottom feeders," contributing nothing -- eating into their profit -- gluttons who must be dispensed with. Any rancher or farmer will tell you that it's good business to cull the herd for a variety of reasons, such as market outlook, cash flow, or just to maintain a healthier, more easily controlled mass of cattle. It makes no sense to keep problem cows, the elderly, the ill or nonproductive around. There comes a time when you must cut your losses and cull the herd.

There are those who, unlike Kissinger and his co-conspirators, are not interested in profit or power, but believe fervently that human population is destroying the planet. Perhaps the most outspoken is University of Texas evolutionary scientist Dr. Eric R. Pianka, who gave a speech in March 2006 advocating the elimination of 90 percent of Earth's population.

According to Forrest M. Mims III, chairman of the Environmental Science Section of the Texas Academy of Science and the editor of The Citizen Scientist, Pianka shrugged aside war and famine -- too slow -- and said "the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die" is disease. Pianka advocates airborne Ebola because, he explained, "it is highly lethal, and it kills in days, instead of years."

Pianka drew rounds of enthusiastic applause throughout his speech, and a standing ovation when he threw in the Bird Flu for good measure, and quipped gleefully, "We need to sterilize everybody on the Earth." Five hours later, the university presented Pianka with a plaque, not for winning hands down as "Mad Scientist of the Year," but in recognition of his being named 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.

It doesn't take a wild imagination to know that genocide is real, and it's underway in America. The most blatant example is the barbaric response to Hurricane Katrina victims -- withholding food, blocking aid, ignoring those clinging to rooftops while crying out in vain for help, leaving corpses to float in the flooded streets or to rot in the Superdome. If you start with the poor, minorities, elderly, the ill or nonproductive, the culling becomes much easier the next time around. Those who wait become inured to the inhumanity and, rather than rise up against it, breathe sighs of relief that it's others and not them who are rounded up and herded to the slaughterhouse.

Imagine what life would be like if the Food and Drug Administration did not ensure the safety of our food chain . . . if our creeks and rivers were polluted by sewage and industrial waste . . . if vaccines forced on our children caused mental deficiencies, even death . . . if mothers were afraid to breast-feed their babies because the environmental toxin perchlorate present in our food and water supply accumulates in mother's milk . . . if our air was contaminated . . . if we had a government cold-hearted enough to withhold food and aid from the needy and health care from poor children . . . if we were spied upon and incarcerated, tortured, disappeared without charges . . .

Oh yeah. I forgot. That is what our life is like. All that, and more, is grinding relentlessly away at our safety, our health and our lives.

We have the power to remove these madmen. They are criminals under Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, and they must pay for their crimes. One more year wherein millions more throughout the world are slaughtered is, as they say, not an option.

The culling must stop, even if we are forced to stampede. They must be impeached.

Sheila Samples is an Oklahoma writer and a former civilian US Army Public Information Officer. She is a regular contributor for a variety of Internet sites. Contact her at rsamples@wichitaonline.net.

Politics Drove Federal Prosecution

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/23/AR2007102302081.html

Ex-Attorney General Says Politics Drove Federal Prosecution
House Panel Evaluating Justice Dept.
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 24, 2007; A03

Richard L. Thornburgh, who served as attorney general under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, accused the Justice Department yesterday of prosecuting a prominent Pennsylvania Democrat for political reasons, one of a series of cases singled out by House Democrats as examples of alleged GOP meddling at the Justice Department.

Thornburgh, who served as attorney general from 1988 to 1991 and whose law firm represents Cyril Wecht, a nationally known coroner from Pittsburgh, testified yesterday that Wecht had been indicted for mail fraud and a "hodgepodge" of other charges by overzealous prosecutors keen on pleasing political appointees in Washington.

"He has always been a contentious, outspoken, highly critical and highly visible Democratic figure in western Pennsylvania," Thornburgh told the House Judiciary Committee. "In other words, he would qualify as an ideal target for a Republican U.S. attorney trying to curry favor with a department which demonstrated that if you play by its rules, you will advance."

Thornburgh also said that Wecht "was not the only apparent political prosecution in western Pennsylvania," pointing to three high-profile cases of other local Democrats brought by U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan of Pittsburgh.

The testimony came as part of a special hearing focused on alleged political prosecutions of Democrats by the Justice Department, which has come under intense criticism from Congress this year for the controversial firings of nine U.S. attorneys and for its role in setting aggressive detention and interrogation policies.

The hearing also was held as the Senate is considering whether to approve the nomination of former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey as attorney general to succeed Alberto R. Gonzales, who resigned in August in the wake of the uproar over the prosecutor firings and other controversies.

In another case highlighted yesterday, Democrats alleged that Alabama Republicans pushed for the prosecution of former governor Don Siegelman, who is serving an 88-month sentence after being convicted on corruption charges.

Justice Department officials strongly object to claims that local Democratic politicians have been unfairly singled out for prosecution, pointing to criminal cases against former lobbyist Jack Abramoff, former congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham (Calif.) and other prominent Republicans.

"It has been -- and remains -- the practice of the department to investigate and prosecute individuals who violate federal law without regard to their political affiliation," said Justice spokesman Peter Carr.

The administration and GOP lawmakers also sharply criticized a study highlighted yesterday by Democrats, that, based on newspaper and Internet reports, suggests a 5 to 1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans targeted for investigation by the Bush administration.

In the Pittsburgh case, Wecht was indicted on 84 charges related to allegations that he misused his public office as coroner for private gain. The charges include an alleged agreement to provide a local university with unclaimed cadavers from the county morgue in exchange for his private use of lab space.

Thornburgh, who was a two-term Pennsylvania governor before he became attorney general, was particularly critical of Buchanan, who has served in a series of senior Justice Department positions and was close to Gonzales's inner circle.

"The citizens of the United States must have confidence that the department is conducting itself in a fair and impartial" manner, "without actual political influence or the appearance of political influence," Thornburgh testified. "Unfortunately, that may no longer be the case."

Buchanan said in a statement issued through the Justice Department yesterday that the case against Wecht was "based solely on the facts and the law." She said it was "unfortunate" that Thornburgh aired his criticism in Congress rather than in the courts.

"Every investigation and prosecution is overseen by career prosecutors and experienced agents who analyze evidence from a law enforcement, not a partisan, perspective," Buchanan said.

In the Alabama case, Siegelman was convicted last year of accepting $500,000 from the chief executive of HealthSouth, Richard M. Scrushy, in exchange for appointing Scrushy to a state hospital board. Siegelman won election as governor in 1998 but was narrowly defeated in 2002 by Republican Bob Riley, who still holds the seat.

A GOP lawyer from Alabama, Jill Simpson, has told House Judiciary Committee investigators that a key Republican strategist in that state told her that former presidential adviser Karl Rove had pushed to bring corruption charges against Siegelman. Simpson also has alleged that Bob Riley's son, Rob, boasted about a Republican judge who would "hang Don Siegelman," according to an affidavit released by the Judiciary Committee.

Rob Riley and others named by Simpson have denied the allegations. Bush administration officials also have rejected Simpson's account, and the White House has said Rove had no involvement in the case. Louis V. Franklin Sr., the acting U.S. attorney for the Middle District of Alabama in the Siegelman case, says that Siegelman was under investigation prior to the alleged conversations recounted by Simpson.

G. Douglas Jones, a former Siegelman lawyer who served as U.S. attorney in Birmingham during the Clinton administration, testified yesterday that federal prosecutors assured him in 2004 that charges against Siegelman were unlikely -- but the case was revived later that year during a "top-to-bottom review" ordered by Justice Department officials in Washington.

"The charges that we were told had been 'written off' were obviously now back on the table, and for the first time it appeared that agents were not investigating any allegations of a crime but were now fishing around for anything they could find against an individual," Jones said.

Franklin and other career prosecutors in Alabama say they were not pressured by the White House or Justice Department political appointees in the case.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012

Bush Fulfills His Grandfather's Dream
By David Swanson
Created Jul 28 2007

It's remarkably common for a grandson to take up his grandfather's major project. This occurred to me when I read recently of Thor Heyerdahl's grandson taking up his mission to cross the Pacific on a raft. But what really struck me was the BBC story aired on July 23rd documenting President George W. Bush's grandfather's involvement [1] in a 1933 plot to overthrow the U.S. government and install a fascist dictatorship. I knew the story, but had not considered the possibility that the grandson was trying to accomplish what his grandfather had failed to achieve.

Prescott Sheldon Bush (1895 to 1972) attended Yale University and joined the secret society known as Skull and Bones. Prescott is widely reported to have stolen the skull of Native American leader Geronimo. As far as I know, this has not actually been confirmed. In fact, Prescott seems to have had a habit of making things up. He sent letters home from World War I claiming he'd received medals for heroism. After the letters were printed in newspapers, he had to retract his claims.

If this does not yet sound like the life of a George W. Bush ancestor, try this on for size: Prescott Bush's early business efforts tended to fail. He married the daughter of a very rich man named George Herbert Walker (the guy with the compound at Kennebunkport, Maine, that now belongs to the Bush family, and the origin of Dubya's middle initial). Walker installed Prescott Bush as an executive in Thyssen and Flick. From then on, Prescott's business dealings went better, and he entered politics.

Now, the name Thyssen comes from a German named Fritz Thyssen, major financial backer of the rise of Adolph Hitler. Thyssen was referred to in the New York Herald-Tribune as "Hitler's Angel." During the 1930s and early 1940s, and even as late as 1951, Prescott Bush was involved in business dealings with Thyssen, and was inevitably aware of both Thyssen's political activities and the fact that the companies involved were financially benefiting the nation of Germany. In addition, the companies Prescott Bush profited from included one engaged in mining operations in Poland using slave labor from Auschwitz. Two former slave laborers have sued the U.S. government and the heirs of Prescott Bush for $40 billion.

Until the United States entered World War II it was legal for Americans to do business with Germany, but in late 1942 Prescott Bush's businesses interests were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act. Among those businesses involved was the Hamburg America Lines, for which Prescott Bush served as a manager. A Congressional committee, in a report called the McCormack-Dickstein Report, found that Hamburg America Lines had offered free passage to Germany for journalists willing to write favorably about the Nazis, and had brought Nazi sympathizers to America. (Is this starting to remind anyone of our current president's relationship to the freedom of the press?)

The McCormack-Dickstein Committee was established to investigate a homegrown American fascist plot hatched in 1933. Here's how the BBC promoted its recent story:

"Document uncovers details of a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by right-wing American businessmen. The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression. Mike Thomson investigates why so little is known about this biggest ever peacetime threat to American democracy."

Actually, if you listen to the 30-minute BBC story, there is not one word of so much as speculation as to why this story is so little known. I think a clue to the answer can be found by looking into why this BBC report has not led to any U.S. media outlets picking up the story this week.

The BBC report provides a good account of the basic story. Some of the wealthiest men in America approached Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, beloved of many World War I veterans, many of them embittered by the government's treatment of them. Prescott Bush's group asked Butler to lead 500,000 veterans in a take-over of Washington and the White House. Butler refused and recounted the affair to the congressional committee. His account was corroborated in part by a number of witnesses, and the committee concluded that the plot was real. But the names of wealthy backers of the plot were blacked out in the committee's records, and nobody was prosecuted. According to the BBC, President Roosevelt cut a deal. He refrained from prosecuting some of the wealthiest men in America for treason. They agreed to end Wall Street's opposition to the New Deal.

Clearly the lack of accountability in Washington, D.C., did not begin with Nancy Pelosi taking Dubya's impeachment off the table, or with Congress' decision to avoid impeachment for President Ronald Reagan (a decision that arguably played a large role in installing Prescott Bush's son George H.W. Bush as president), or with the failure to investigate the apparent deal that George H.W. Bush and others made with Iran to not release American hostages until Reagan was made president, or with the failure to prosecute Richard Nixon after he resigned. Lack of accountability is a proud tradition in our nation's capital. Or maybe I should say our former nation's capital. I don't recognize the place anymore, and I credit that to George W. Bush's efforts to fulfill his grandfather's dream using far subtler and more effective means than a military coup.

Bush the grandson took office through a highly fraudulent election that he nonetheless lost. The Supreme Court blocked a recount of the vote and installed Dubya.

Prescott's grandson proceeded to weaken or eliminate most of the Bill of Rights in the name of protection from a dark foreign enemy. He even tossed out habeas corpus. The grandson of Prescott, that dreamer of the 1930s, established with very little resistance that the U.S. government can kidnap, detain indefinitely on no charge, torture, and murder. The United States under Prescott Bush's grandson adopted policies that heretofore had been considered only Nazi policies, most strikingly the willingness to openly plan and engage in aggressive wars on other nations.

At the same time, Dubya has accomplished a huge transfer of wealth within the United States from the rest of us to the extremely wealthy. He's also effected a major privatization of public operations, including the military. And he's kept tight control over the media.

Dubya has given himself the power to rewrite all laws with signing statements. He's established that intentionally misleading the Congress about the need for a war is not a crime that carries any penalty. He's given himself the right (just as Hitler did) to open anyone's mail. He's created illegal spying programs and then proposed to legalize them. Prescott would be so proud!

The current President Bush has accomplished much more smoothly than his grandfather could have imagined a feat that was one of the goals of Prescott's gang, namely the elimination of Congress.
_______
http://www.davidswanson.org/ [2]

About author David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com.

http://www.davidswanson.org/ [3]

Links:
[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/document/document_20070723.shtml
[2] http://www.davidswanson.org/
[3] http://www.davidswanson.org/
[4] http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012&title=Bush+Fulfills+His+Grandfather%27s+Dream
[5] http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012
[6] http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012&title=Bush+Fulfills+His+Grandfather%27s+Dream
[7] http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012&h=Bush+Fulfills+His+Grandfather%27s+Dream
[8] http://www.google.com/bookmarks/mark?op=add&bkmk=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012&title=Bush+Fulfills+His+Grandfather%27s+Dream
[9] http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012&t=Bush+Fulfills+His+Grandfather%27s+Dream
[10] http://technorati.com/cosmos/search.html?url=http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/9012