THIS FAR AND NO FURTHER

Written and Compiled by Black Max

January 2007, Week Two

Page Three

 

• January 11: US forces raid the Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi city of Irbil (or Arbil) and detain five staff members, a provocative military move against Iranian diplomats and civilians that the US explains as part of ongoing attempts to identify and detain top officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Qods Brigade operating in Iraq.

  War with Iran

  The al-Qods Brigade is active in arming, training and funding militant movements, such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, throughout the Middle East. The US troops disarm Iranian guards and break open the consulate's gates to seize documents and computers as well as officials. The raid on the consulate follows a powerfully belligerent statement from Bush in his speech of the night before, where he accuses Iran and Syria of aiding terrorists and insurgents in and out of Iraq, and promises that the US will "seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies." Irbil is the Kurdistan Regional Government's seat in Iraq's northern autonomous Kurdish area. Iran has protested the raid and detentions with a letter to Iraq's foreign ministry, calling on the Iraqi government to secure the release of the detainees. Like the two Iranian military officials briefly detained by US forces in December 2006, it is believed that the Iranians currently under detention have diplomatic status, making it difficult for the US to justify their detention under the accepted rule of international law. Iran's foreign ministry summons Iraqi and Swiss diplomats to protest and demand an explanation; Switzerland represents US interests in Iran. tehran contends that the five men detained are all diplomats, an assertion that Iraq's foreign minister and US officials reject. Russia's foreign ministy labels the raid "absolutely unacceptable" and "the crudest possible violation of the Vienna convention on consular relations." The statement from the ministry refers to the raid as being directed against "the Iranian consulate general" and describes five Iranians arrested as "diplomats."
• A day later, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice acknowledges Bush directly authorized the US military raids, as part of an order for broad offensives against Iranian operatives in Iraq. "There has been a decision to go after these networks," Rice says before leaving for the Middle East. She confirms that Bush issued the order several months ago "after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity" among Iranians in Iraq "and increasing lethality in what they were producing." "The United States is simply responding to Iranian activities that have been going on for a while now that threaten not just to destabilize the chance for Iraq to proceed to stability but also that endanger our forces," says Rice. She adds that the US does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians. Interestingly, Rice denies that the Iranian office is not a diplomatic consulate, which would be protected by international treaty, but Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contradicts Rice, saying that the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and was in the process of being approved as a consulate.
• By January 14, US military officials are accusing the five Iranians of having "ties" to an Iranian Revolutionary Guard faction that funds and arms insurgents in Iraq. The US provides no details or proof of the accusations, and Iran denies the charges. "Preliminary results revealed the five detainees are connected to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Qods Force (IRGC-QF), an organization known for providing funds, weapons, improvised explosive device technology and training to extremist groups attempting to destabilize the government of Iraq and attack coalition forces," the US military says in a statement. "Qods" is the Arabic name for Jerusalem, and a frequent name for political or military factions across the Muslim world. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammed Ali Hosseini responds, "Their job was basically consular, official and in the framework of regulations. What Americans express was incorrect and hyperbole against Iran in order to justify their acts." He says the Iranian representative office where the five men worked was established in Irbil in 1992 to facilitate the visit of Kurdish businessmen and medical patients from Iraq to Iran. "Then, both countries agreed to promote it to consular level. Agreement for formation of the Iranian consulate section was exchanged in the current [Iranian] year." Hosseini says of the five detainees, "The United States should release all the five persons, prevent possible similar acts and compensate damages." The US, of course, has no intentions of doing anything of the sort. The US even disputes the Iraqi Foreign Minister's own confirmation that the facility is, indeed, a consulate, saying, "The facility in which the detention took place has been described by various Iraqi officials as an Iranian liaison office, but it did not enjoy the diplomatic status of a consulate according to Iraqi and US officials." (Bloomberg, Washington Post, AP/Yahoo! News, AP/Yahoo! News, AFP/BreitBart)
• January 11: According to the insider publication "Washington Note," intelligence, military, and foreign policy officials believe that Bush has, in the last few days, signed a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and the director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran.

  War with Iran

  If this is true, Bush has started a "new secret, informal war against Syria and Iran" without Congressional authorization or even any acknowledgements for the American citizenry. In last night's speech, Bush said, "Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We'll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence-sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region." The bare outlines of his apparent military aggression against these two countries can be gleaned from these lines.
• The Note observes that today, less than a day after the speech, US forces raided the Iranian consulate in Arbil, Iraq and detained five Iranian staff members (see above January 11 item). While in itself, this move has sparked considerable outrage among allies and opponents alike, many in Washington are speculating that US forces are operating inside the borders of Iran and Syria. The Note's Steve Clemons writes that speculation is rife that "the Consulate raid may have been designed to try and prompt a military response from Iran -- to generate a casus belli for further American action. Clemons writes, "If this is the case, the debate about adding four brigades to Iraq is pathetic. The situation will get even hotter than it now is, worsening the American position and exposing the fact that to fight Iran both within the borders of Iraq and into Iranian territory, there are not enough troops in the theatre. Bush may really have pushed the escalation pedal more than any of us realize."
• Clemons notes in an update to the article that the "exchange today in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee between Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joseph Biden and Senator Chuck Hagel with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is full of non-denial denials and evasive answers to Biden's query about the President's ability to authorize military operations against forces within Iran and Syria." Rice's two-stepping around Biden's questioning is detailed in the article linked below. (Washington Note)

"My concern is we're gonna see a ginning up situation whereby we fall in hot pursuit any effort by the Iranians to interfere with Iraq. We take a couple shots at them, they react, then we bomb the hell out of them and hit their nuclear installations without any without any action by Congress. That's the scenario I fear, an extra-constitutional war is what I'm worried about." -- MSNBC's Chris Matthews, to White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, January 11

• January 11: The White House operation to market the wildly unpopular Bush escalation plan to the American people and the global community kicks off this weekend.

  Media manipulation and marketing by GOP

  After his appearance at Fort Benning (see January 11 item), Bush will appear on CBS's 60 Minutes, which airs immediately after an NFL playoff game. Dick Cheney will appear before sympathetic "interviewer" Chris Wallace on Fox News. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaves today on a week-long trip to the Middle East and Europe to brief US allies on the plan. White House spokesman Tony Snow has already begun granting interviews to right-wing radio and television hosts. Snow says the PR blitz will continue throughout the following weeks. He says the strategy is aimed at several distinct audiences, including Congress, servicemembers, Iraqis and other Middle Eastern countries, as well as the American public. White House communications director Kevin Sullivan adds, "This is something the president will do on an ongoing basis. We'll do it in a lot of different ways." It is entirely typical of this administration to approach an unpopular, unfeasible plan with nothing more than a "new and improved" marketing strategy. (USA Today)
• January 11: Several senior administration officials attempt to explain the new Bush policy to skeptical senators, drawing heavy criticism and mockery from both Republicans and Democrats.

  Iraq war and occupation

  (See the January 10 item on Bush's speech to see more information and quotes from the briefings.) "Why should we give you the benefit of the doubt this time, when it appears so evident that so many mistakes have been made in the past?" House Democrat Robert Wexler asks Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates, appearing before the House Armed Services Committee, refuses to discuss an exit strategy for US troops to begin departing Iraq, saying, "At the outset of the strategy, it's a mistake to talk about an exit strategy."
• In an interesting set of admissions, Gates says, "I would confess I'm no expert on Iraq." Later, asked about reaching the right balance between American and Iraqi forces, the new defense secretary tells the panel he is "no expert on military matters." Those statements obviously begs the question -- if Gates is no expert on military matters, why is he Defense Secretary? And why is he explaining and attempting to sell the new Iraq strategy if he is no expert on Iraq? (CBS News)
• January 11: In an attempt to whip up support for his "new" war plan, Bush travels to Fort Benning, Georgia, to speak before a carefully selected group of US soldiers.

  Iraq war and occupation

  The soldiers regard Bush in stony silence for most of his speech, though, as ordered, they give him a standing ovation when he finishes. Bush tells the troops that in Iraq there has been "remarkable progress," but "2006 turned out differently than I anticipated. And it did because there's an enemy there that recognizes that the advance of freedom is in contrast to their hopes and their dreams. The situation in Iraq is difficult, no question about it." To ensure that Bush would not hear any dissent, base commander Major General Walter Wojdakowski prohibits the 300 soldiers who had lunch with Bush from talking with reporters. If any of them harbored doubts about heading back to Iraq, many for the third time, they were kept silent or not allowed to meet with Bush. White House officials had promised reporters they could talk with soldiers, but Wojdakowski wasn't cooperative. "The commanding general said he does not want media talking to soldiers today," spokeswoman Tracy Bailey says. "He wants the focus to be on the president's speech."
• According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the troops in attendance were handpicked: "Bush spoke to the handpicked group after a lunch of turkey club sandwiches in a makeshift cafeteria set up in the reception area of Lawson Army Airfield, where troops leave for and return from Iraq." The New York Times adds, "About 4,000 soldiers from the 3rd Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division based here are scheduled to go to Iraq soon.... No 3rd Brigade soldiers [scheduled to go to Iraq within days] were in attendance for the lunch or the speech."
• Interestingly, an AP article reprinted by ABC News claimed that Bush was "surrounded...by cheering soldiers" as he promoted his plan to escalate the US military presence in Iraq. In contrast, the Washington Post,, the New York Times,, and the Los Angeles Times all reported "polite applause" and "respectful silence" from the soldiers. Similar reports came from the other two major news outlets. The AP/ABC report also did not mention the fact that soldiers at the event were not allowed to talk to reporters. (CNN, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal-Constitution/New York Times/CorrenteWire, AP/MediaMatters)

Comptroller General says taxes may have to double to pay for Bush's out-of-control spending

• January 11: David Walker, the Comptroller General of the United States, tells the Senate Budget Committee that if runaway government spending isn't brought under control right now, America's tax burden could double by 2040.

  Bush's economic policies

  "[B]alancing the budget in 2040 could require actions as large as cutting total federal spending by 60 percent or raising federal taxes to 2 times today's level," says Walker. He says that decision-makers in Washington suffer from "tunnel vision" and "myopia." Walker tells the committee, "Continuing on our current fiscal path would gradually erode, if not suddenly damage, our economy, our standard of living, and ultimately even our domestic tranquility and our national security." Walker heads the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent, nonpartisan watchdog of Congress that evaluates the spending of American tax dollars and advises Congress on improving government programs. While he acknowledges the single-year fiscal improvement touted by the Bush administration for 2006, he says that "it did not fundamentally change our long-term fiscal outlook." He also notes that since 2000, America's net social insurance commitments and other fiscal obligations have increased to $50 trillion from $20 trillion, representing four times the nation's total economic output. Rising national health care costs are the greatest culprit according to data collected by Walker's agency. During the course of the hearing, senators also asked Walker about the cost estimates presented by Bush for sending 21,500 more troops to Iraq this year. Walker believes that the amount of money planned to be spent on the troop escalation was much more than needed for the number of troops involved. "I have some serious concerns about the numbers.... It is unclear what much of the $5.6 billion is to be spent on," he says. (Raw Story [link to full statement], Crooks and Liars)
• January 11: The House of Representatives passes a bill bolstering embryonic stem cell research that advocates say shows promise for numerous medical cures.

  Medical research and funding

  The bill, though passing by a 253-174 margin, lacks the two-thirds margin required to defeat a Bush veto. A two-thirds majority is 290 votes. Bush says he will veto this bill as well, and a White House spokesman derides the bill, saying it would "would use federal taxpayer dollars to support and encourage the destruction of human life for research." Stem cell research such as that funded by this bill involves the destruction of frozen human embryos, a technique that anti-abortion forces characterize as murder. Proponents of the research said it is done on embryos that would otherwise be discarded from fertility clinics anyway. House Minority Leader John Boehner says, "I support stem cell research with only one exception -- research that requires killing human life. Taxpayer-funded stem cell research must be carried out in an ethical manner in a way that respects the sanctity of human life. Fortunately, ethical stem cell alternatives continue to flourish in the scientific community." Boehner's attempt to split the difference is specious; as of now, there is no valid scientific method to conduct research on stem cells without destroying frozen embryos. Democratic representative James Langevin, an anti-abortion lawmaker who is paralyzed from the chest down from a handgun accident that occurred when he was a teenager, counters that such research offers "tremendous hope that not only stem cell research might lead one day to a cure for spinal cord injuries but one day a child with diabetes will no longer have to endure a lifetime of painful shots and tests."
• Dr. Robert Lanza, a top stem cell researcher, says that stem cell-based treatments could be just a few years away for eye and spinal cord injuries, but that a decade or more of research is needed before treatments might become available for diseases such as diabetes and Alzheimer's. Polls show a strong majority of Americans support embryonic stem cell research, and Democrats say the issue played a big role in the November 7 elections that returned their party to the majority in the House and Senate. However, because some Republicans who support stem cell research were defeated in November, sometimes by other Republicans who oppose such research, the House only gained 15 votes on the measure from last year, when it passed Congress but went down to Bush's veto. The legislation would lift Bush's 2001 ban on federal dollars spent on deriving new stem cells from fertilized embryos. Bush's veto of the bill last year was the first veto of his presidency. Democrat Edward Markey warns that if Congress does not override a Bush veto this time, "this will be remembered as a Luddite Moment in American history, where fear triumphed over hope and ideology triumphed over science." And fellow Democrat Rahm Emanuel wonders, not entirely seriously, whether those voting against the bill would be willing to waive their right to access the cures that would come from the work.
• Right now only 21 (at most) stem cell lines are available for researchers, and many of them are all but useless. Researchers say 300 newer lines, culled from fertility clinic leftovers otherwise destined to be thrown away, are considered better suited for implantation into sick Americans. Scientists take those cells from a 5-day-old embryo, when it's slightly bigger than the period at the end of this sentence. (AP/Yahoo! News, Washington Post)
• January 11: In a brief reaction to Bush's speech, Democratic House member John Murtha writes that he sees no differnce between the last "surge" of 10,000 additional troops, which took place in September 2006, and the current escalation being undertaken.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Murtha writes, "Attacks increased and a record number of Americans and Iraqis were killed. I see no difference between this and the President's plan to 'stay the course.'" Murtha continues, "I am particularly disappointed that there are no credible benchmarks and no way to measure the military and economic progress of this operation. There is no incentive for the Iraqis to take over. All of us want stability in the Middle East, and Iraq is an important element in achieving that stability. But the military and their families deserve an achievable mission. It is unacceptable to me that we are sending troops back to Iraq who have not completed their training cycle and that we are extending troops who are battle-weary from the intensive combat in Iraq. A year ago, I called for a redeployment of our forces and predicted that this 'stay the course' policy would adversely affect our military readiness. The Defense Subcommittee will begin holding extensive hearings on January 17th to determine how we can best restore the readiness and strategic reserve of our military." (Huffington Post)
• January 11: MSNBC's Keith Olbermann gives the latest in his powerful series of "special comments" on the topic of Bush's new Iraq strategy -- now blossoming, Olbermann warns, into an "Iran strategy."

  War with Iran

  He opens with the following salvo: "Only this president, only in this time, only with this dangerous, even messianic certitude, could answer a country demanding an exit strategy from Iraq, by offering an entrance strategy for Iran. Only this president could look out over a vista of 3,008 dead and 22,834 wounded in Iraq, and finally say, 'Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me' -- only to follow that by proposing to repeat the identical mistake...in Iran." He warns that Bush is taking the recommendations, by the Iraq Study Group and others, for opening diplomatic dialogues with Iran and Syria and transforming into threats against those countries, "when al-Qaeda would like nothing better than for us to threaten Syria, and when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would like nothing better than to be threatened by us. This is diplomacy by skimming; it is internationalism by drawing pictures of Superman in the margins of the text books; it is a presidency of Cliff Notes. ...Mr. Bush, the question is no longer 'what are you thinking?,' but rather 'are you thinking at all?'"
• He notes that Bush's war rhetoric against Iran and Syria come in the face of overwhelming opposition to the Iraqi occupation, both by the American people and bipartisan criticisms from Congress, and that he has no mandate whatsoever to open hostilities against either of those countries. Olbermann warns that America's military is already stretched to the brink of breaking, and now Bush wants to stretch it even further. The US military, Olbermann warns, "is so weary that many of the troops you have just consigned to Iraq will be on their second tours or their third tours or their fourth tours -- and now you're going to make them take on Iran and Syria as well? Who is left to go and fight, sir? Who are you going to send to 'interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria'? Laura and Barney? ...Middle of a debate over the lives and deaths of another 21,500 of our citizens in Iraq, and the president wants to saddle up against Iran and Syria. Maybe that's the point -- to shift the attention away from just how absurd and childish this latest war strategy is, (strategy, that is, for the war already under way, and not the one on deck). We are going to put 17,500 more troops into Baghdad and 4,000 more into Anbar Province to give the Iraqi government 'breathing space.'
• "In and of itself that is an awful and insulting term. The lives of 21,500 more Americans endangered, to give 'breathing space' to a government that just turned the first and perhaps the most sober act of any democracy -- the capital punishment of an ousted dictator -- into a vengeance lynching so barbaric and so lacking in the solemnities necessary for credible authority, that it might have offended the Ku Klux Klan of the 19th century. And what will our men and women in Iraq do? The ones who will truly live -- and die -- during what Mr. Bush said last night will be a 'year ahead' that 'will demand more patience, sacrifice, and resolve'? ...[L]ast night the president foolishly all but announced that we will be sending these 21,500 poor souls, but no more after that, and if the whole thing fizzles out, we're going home. The plan fails militarily. The plan fails symbolically. The plan fails politically. Most importantly, perhaps, Mr. Bush, the plan fails because it still depends on your credibility. You speak of mistakes and of the responsibility 'resting' with you. But you do not admit to making those mistakes. And you offer us nothing to justify this clenched fist toward Iran and Syria. In fact, when you briefed news correspondents off-the-record before the speech, they were told, once again, 'if you knew what we knew...if you saw what we saw....' 'If you knew what we knew' was how we got into this morass in Iraq in the first place. The problem arose when it turned out that the question wasn't whether we knew what you knew, but whether you knew what you knew. You, sir, have become the president who cried wolf. ...We no longer have a clue, sir. We have heard too many stories."
• Olbermann continues his relentless hammering of Bush's lost credibility: "Your assurances, sir, and your demands that we trust you, have lost all shape and texture. They are now merely fertilizer for conspiracy theories. They are now fertilizer, indeed. The pile has been built slowly and with seeming care." He lists again the lies and misdirections Bush employed to fool the American people and Congress into not only electing and re-electing him, but in justifying his groundless invasion of Iraq (see above item for details): "Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said nation-building was wrong for America. Now he says it is vital. He said he would never put US troops under foreign control. Last night he promised to embed them in Iraqi units. He told us about WMD. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubes. Yellow-cake.
• "He has told us the war is necessary: Because Saddam was a material threat. Because of 9/11. Because of Osama Bin Laden. Al-Qaeda. Terrorism in general. To liberate Iraq. To spread freedom. To spread democracy. To prevent terrorism by gas price increases. Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad. Because -- 439 words in to the speech last night -- he trotted out 9/11 again. In advocating and prosecuting this war he passed on a chance to get Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. To get Moqtada al-Sadr. To get bin Laden. He sent in fewer troops than the generals told him to. He ordered the Iraqi army disbanded and the Iraqi government 'de-Baathified.' He short-changed Iraqi training. He neglected to plan for widespread looting. He did not anticipate sectarian violence. He sent in troops without life-saving equipment. He gave jobs to foreign contractors, and not Iraqis. He staffed U.S. positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.
• "He and his government told us: America had prevailed, mission accomplished, the resistance was in its last throes. He has insisted more troops were not necessary. He has now insisted more troops are necessary. He has insisted it's up to the generals, and then removed some of the generals who said more troops would not be necessary.
• "He has trumpeted the turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam. A provisional government, a charter, a constitution, the trial of Saddam. Elections, purple fingers, another government, the death of Saddam. He has assured us: We would be greeted as liberators -- with flowers. As they stood up, we would stand down. We would stay the course; we were never about 'stay the course.' We would never have to go door-to-door in Baghdad. And, last night, that to gain Iraqis' trust, we would go door-to-door in Baghdad. He told us the enemy was al-Qaeda, foreign fighters, terrorists, Baathists, and now Iran and Syria. He told us the war would pay for itself. It would cost $1.7 billion. $100 billion. $400 billion. Half a trillion. Last night's speech alone cost another $6 billion.
• "And after all of that, now it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Democrats, Republicans, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November and the majority of the American people. Oh, and one more to add, tonight: Oceania has always been at war with East Asia. Mr. Bush, this is madness. You have lost the military. You have lost the Congress to the Democrats. You have lost most of the Iraqis. You have lost many of the Republicans. You have lost our allies. You are losing the credibility, not just of your presidency, but more importantly of the office itself. And most imperatively, you are guaranteeing that more American troops will be losing their lives, and more families their loved ones. You are guaranteeing it! This becomes your legacy, sir: How many of those you addressed last night as your 'fellow citizens' you just sent to their deaths. And for what, Mr. Bush? So the next president has to pull the survivors out of Iraq instead of you?" (MSNBC [link to video])
• January 11: Middle East expert Juan Cole says Bush's central notion of Iraq as "infested" with al-Qaeda fighters, all helped by Syria and Iran, and possibly threatening the US mainland with missiles, is so wrong that it is "shameful" for Bush to "come out after nearly four years of such lies and try to put this fantasy over on the American people...."

  Iraq war and occupation

  Cole writes, "The answer to 'al-Qaeda's' occupation of neighborhoods in Baghdad and the cities of al-Anbar is then, Bush says, to send in more US troops to 'clear and hold' these neighborhoods. But is that really the big problem in Iraq? Bush is thinking in terms of a conventional war, where armies fight to hold territory. But if a nimble guerrilla group can come out at night and set off a bomb at the base of a large tenement building in a Shi'ite neighborhood, they can keep the sectarian civil war going. They work by provoking reprisals. They like to hold territory if they can. But as we saw with Fallujah and Tal Afar, if they cannot they just scatter and blow things up elsewhere."
• Cole, who is far more knowledgeable about the Middle East than most of Bush's closest advisors and policymakers, writes that "the main problem is not 'al-Qaeda,' which is small and probably not that important, and anyway is not really bin Laden's al-Qaeda. They are just Salafi jihadis who appropriated the name. When their leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, was killed, it didn't cause the insurgency to miss a beat. Conclusion: 'al-Qaeda' is not central to the struggle. Izzat Ibrahim Duri and the Baath Party are probably the center of gravity of the resistance."
• After discussing the probability of further bombings against Shi'ite and Sunni holy sites and the escalation of violence that these bombings will create, he writes, "Bush could not help taking swipes at Iran and Syria. But the geography of his deployments gives the lie to his singling them out as mischief makers. Why send 4,000 extra troops to al-Anbar province? Why ignore Diyala Province near Iran, which is in flames, or Babel Province southwest of Baghdad? Diyala borders Iran, so isn't that the threat? But wait. Where is al-Anbar? Between Jordan and Baghdad. In other words, al-Anbar opens out into the vast Sunni Arab hinterland that supports the guerrilla movement with money and volunteers, coming in from Jordan. If Syria was the big problem, you would put the extra 4,000 troops up north along the border. If Iran was the big problem, you'd occupy Diyala. But little Jordan is an ally of the US, and Bush would not want to insult it by admitting that it is a major infiltration root for jihadis heading to Iraq. The clear and hold strategy is not going to work in al-Anbar. Almost everyone there hates the Americans and wants them out. To clear and hold you need a sympathetic or potentially sympathetic civilian population that is being held hostage by militants, and which you can turn by offering them protection from the militants. I don't believe there are very many Iraqi Sunnis who can any longer be turned in that way. The opinion polling suggests that they overwhelmingly support violence against the US. This strategy may have some successes here and there. It won't win the day, and I'd be surprised if it did not collapse by the end of the summer."
• Cole believes that, "[i]f part of the strategy is to assault the Mahdi Army frontally, that will cause enormous trouble in the Shi'ite south. I would suggest that PM Nouri al-Maliki's warning to the Mahdi Militia to disarm or face the US military is in fact code. He is telling the Sadrists to lie low while the US mops up the Sunni Arab guerrillas. Sadr's militia became relatively quiescent for a whole year after the Marines defeated it at Najaf in August, 2004. But since it is rooted in an enormous social movement, the militia is fairly easy to reconstitute after it goes into hiding. The Arab allies of the US put pressure on Bush not to just withdraw from Iraq, fearing regional chaos." Cole concludes, "James Ridgeway at Mother Jones compares Bush's speech to Kissinger's indirection during the 1972 negotiations with the N. Vietnamese. Making people think you are making progress when you are not has been a finely honed skill of this administration, far beyond anything Nixon could have dreamed of. But the dream machine is running up against Lincoln's dictum that you can't fool all the people all the time." (Informed Comment)
• January 11: Veteran war journalist James Ridgeway writes that the plan for the Iraq "surge" may well center around Bush's informal, but highly influential, foreign policy advisor, Henry Kissinger.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Ridgeway quotes historian Gareth Porter, who points out that "although he knows very little about how to deal with Sunnis and Shi'ites, Kissinger does know how to convey to the public the illusion of victory, even though the US position in the war is actually weak and unstable." In a January 11 article on Asia Online, Porter writes, "One of Kissinger's accomplishments was to sell the news media on the Nixon administration's propaganda line that the Christmas 1972 bombing of Hanoi had so unnerved the North Vietnamese that it had allowed president Richard Nixon and Kissinger to achieve a diplomatic victory over the communists in the Paris Agreement. That line was a gross distortion of what actually happened before and after the bombing." Kissinger was also the one who helped the Ford administration blame the Vietnam debacle on the Democrats. Is it possible that Kissinger is helping Bush run a similar ploy this time? If so, Bush is throwing in the US's lot with the Shi'ite death squads to eradicate their Sunni counterparts. "So is the Bush administration simply throwing in its lot with one set of death squads over another?" Ridgeway asks. "It wouldn't be the first time." (Mother Jones)
• January 11: Conservative columnist Robert Novak, who has deep connections in the White House and in conservative circles, writes that John Negroponte, the outgoing Director of National Intelligence, says he was asked to take the position of Deputy Secretary of State (long left vacant after the departure of Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy).

  Partisan Bush appointees

  Novak writes, "Just what career diplomat Negroponte was doing as the new intelligence czar in the first place was puzzling. But to pull him out just as his on-the-job training as director had been completed reflects a panicky desire to fill the deputy secretary's post that had been unfilled for an unprecedented six months. Five other key State Department positions are either vacant or soon to be vacant." The reason why, Novak writes, is that, according to Congressional Republicans, "the State Department under Secretary Condoleezza Rice is a mess. That comes at a time when the US global position is precarious. While attention focuses on Iraq, American diplomacy is being tested worldwide -- in Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Korea and Sudan. The judgment by thoughtful Republicans is that Rice has failed to manage that endeavor." According to these Republicans, Rice, whose experience is primarily as an analyst and staffer, not a manager, has not had the kind of strong, dominant deputy she needs to help her run the department. In recent months, she has relied on help from department "counselor" Philip Zelikow, who Novak says alienated many in the department due to his arrogance. After putative deputy Robert Zoellick left 18 months ago, a "furtive, sporadic search for a deputy" began, with little success until "Negroponte...was implored by fellow Foreign Service officers to bring order out of chaos." (Chicago Sun-Times)
• January 11: Blogger Dave Johnson, of Seeing the Forest, writes for OpEd News that the entire concept of the "surge," as opposed to the standard military term "escalation," "is a focus-group word, designed to sell an escalation of the war.

  Iraq war and occupation

  The strategy is to deflect the incoming Democrats' argument for winding down the war by offering the opposite. And look what we are all discussing. This places 'stay the course' as the reasonable middle ground. It is always about appearances and political strategies not reality or the good of the country with this crowd." Johnson gives a few telling examples: "Bush has not asked for tax increases to pay for the war, either. Because it would undermine political support for the party. Instead he offered candy -- tax cuts. ...Bush and his surrogates say we are fighting 'Islamofascism' and it is the worst threat America has ever faced -- and then says 'go shopping.' Fight the worst threat the nation has ever faced by going shopping? Because any kind of sacrifice would undermine support for the Republican Party. Meanwhile fear changes the way people think, and leads much of the population to more easily accept the authoritarian agenda of the right. ...In the face of the worst threat the nation has ever faced, and declining readiness of our military -- 'stretched too thin' -- Bush does not ask for a draft to protect the country. Because that would be politically unpopular and undermine support for the Republican Party. No draft to protect the country. No taxes to pay for the war. No lowering of oil use to cut finding to terrorist states. Nothing that might undermine support for the Republican Party. Party over country at every turn." (OpEd News)
• January 11: Former CIA operative Luis Posada Carriles, a Cuban exile sought in Cuba and Venezuela on terrorism charges, is indicted in Texas on seven charges of naturalization violations.

  US actions in Latin America

  Posada Carriles is charged with making false statements on an application for becoming a naturalized citizen and making false statements under oath during a 2006 interview with Department of Homeland Security officials. Posada Carriles illegally entered the US in 2005 and asked for political asylum. He is suspected of plotting a bombing attack that killed 73 people aboard a Cuban airliner in 1976, an attack believed to have been plotted in Venezuela. A US judge ruled in 2005 that he could not be extradited to either Cuba or Venezuela for fear that he might be tortured. For the last decade, Posada Carriles has been attempting to dodge a trail of charges across Latin America, stemming from his involvement with the CIA's attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro in the 1960s. He was convicted in Panama of trying to assassinate Castro during an international summit in 2000, but was shortly thereafter pardoned by the Panamanian government. He has been in hiding since then, until he demanded asylum in the US. He admits to carrying out attacks on tourist facilities in Cuba in 1997 that left at least one person dead, but denies any involvement in the 1976 plane bombing. However, recently declassified FBI and CIA documents show Posada Corriles as the "employer" of two others believed to have carried out the actual bombing. (DPA/Raw Story)

---

• January 12: The minute hand of the Doomsday Clock will be moved closer to midnight on January 17, the first such change to the clock since February 2002.

  Bush's foreign policies (etc.)

  The Doomsday Clock is a widely recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to nuclear weapons and other threats. The move was announced today by the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It reflects growing concerns about what the board calls a "Second Nuclear Age" marked by grave threats, including nuclear ambitions in Iran and North Korea, unsecured nuclear materials in Russia and elsewhere, and the continuing "launch-ready" status of 2,000 of the 25,000 nuclear weapons held by the US and Russia. The board also cites "escalating terrorism, and new pressure from climate change for expanded civilian nuclear power that could increase proliferation risks." Since 1947, the Doomsday Clock has been a feature of the Bulletin at its headquarters at the University of Chicago. It uses the analogy of the human race being at a time that is a "few minutes to midnight" where midnight represents destruction by nuclear war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had worked on the Manhattan Project and were deeply concerned about the use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war. The magazine is published six times per year.
• The clock's minute hand has been moved 17 times in response to international events since its initial start at seven minutes to midnight in 1947:
  • 1949 (11:57): The Soviet Union tests its first atomic bomb. Clock changed to three minutes to midnight - four minutes closer to midnight.
  • 1953 (11:58): The United States and the Soviet Union test thermonuclear devices within nine months of one another. Clock changed to two minutes to midnight -- one minute closer, its closest approach to midnight to date.
  • 1960 (11:53): In response to a perception of increased scientific cooperation and public understanding of the dangers of nuclear weapons, clock is changed to seven minutes to midnight -- five minutes further from midnight.
  • 1963 (11:48): The United States and Soviet Union sign the Partial Test Ban Treaty, limiting atmospheric nuclear testing. Clock changed to twelve minutes to midnight -- another five minutes further.
  • 1968 (11:53): France and China acquire and test nuclear weapons - 1960 and 1964 respectively - wars rage on in the Middle East, Indian subcontinent, and Vietnam. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight -- five minutes closer to midnight.
  • 1969 (11:50): The US Senate ratifies the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Clock changed to ten minutes to midnight - three minutes further from midnight.
  • 1972 (11:48): The United States and the Soviet Union sign the SALT I - Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) and the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. Clock changed to twelve minutes to midnight -- two minutes further.
  • 1974 (11:51): India tests a nuclear device, Smiling Buddha, and the SALT II talks stall. Clock changed to nine minutes to midnight -- three minutes closer to midnight.
  • 1980 (11:53): Further deadlock in US-USSR talks, increase in nationalist wars and terrorist actions. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight -- two minutes closer.
  • 1981 (11:56): Arms race escalates, conflicts in Afghanistan, South Africa, and Poland. Clock changed to four minutes to midnight -- three minutes closer.
  • 1984 (11:57): Further escalation of the arms race under the US policies of Ronald Reagan. Clock changed to three minutes to midnight -- one more minute closer.
  • 1988 (11:54): The U.S. and the Soviet Union sign treaty to eliminate intermediate-range nuclear forces, relations improve. Clock changed to six minutes to midnight -- three minutes further from midnight.
  • 1990 (11:50): Fall of the Berlin Wall, success of anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe, Cold War nearing an end. Clock changed to ten minutes to midnight - four minutes further.
  • 1991 (11:43): United States and Soviet Union sign the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Clock changed to seventeen minutes to midnight -- seven minutes further, its greatest distance from midnight so far.
  • 1995 (11:46): Global military spending continues at Cold War levels; concerns about post-Soviet nuclear proliferation of weapons and brainpower. Clock changed to fourteen minutes to midnight -- three minutes closer to midnight.
  • 1998 (11:51): Both India and Pakistan test nuclear weapons in a tit-for-tat show of aggression; the United States and Russia run into difficulties in further reducing stockpiles. Clock changed to nine minutes to midnight -- five minutes closer.
  • 2002 (11:53): Little progress on global nuclear disarmament; United States rejects a series of arms control treaties and announces its intentions to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; terrorists seek to acquire nuclear weapons. Clock changed to seven minutes to midnight -- two minutes closer.
  The clock may continue to change as tensions escalate in the Middle East. (Environment News Service)

• January 12: The Shi'ite militia sponsored by radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, known as the Mahdi Army, is preparing for its own "surge" to counter the US escalation by receiving huge new shipments of weapons and sophisticated IEDs, mostly from Iran.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Additionally, al-Sadr has been actively recruiting hundreds of residents of Sadr City to supplement the 8,000 to 10,000 militiamen already believed to make up the Mahdi Army in Baghdad. Bahaa al-Araji, one of al-Sadr's representatives in the Iraqi parliament, says that al-Sadr has ordered his Mahdi Army not to attack US forces even if targeted. But those orders may be swiftly countermanded if US and Iraqi forces actually begin combing Sadr City to capture or kill Shi'ite militia members. Outgoing director of national intelligence John Negroponte told Congress yesterday, "One has to wonder why it is they [Iran] have increased their supply of these kinds of lethal weapons to extremists Shi'a groups in Iraq, provoking violence, attacks on coalition forces and others. And one wonders if their policy towards Iraq may not have shifted to a more aggressive posture than it has been in the past." (ABC News)
• January 12: Washington Post reporter Dan Froomkin demonstrates that Bush is lying when he tells listeners, on January 10 in his speech and again on January 11 during a visit to Fort Benning, that his "surge" plan is at the request of the Iraqi government and of the US military commanders in the Middle East.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Bush told the soldiers on January 11, "The [Iraqi] Prime Minister came and said, look, I understand we've got to do something about this violence, and here is what I suggest we do. Our commanders looked at it, helped fine-tune it so it would work.... The commanders on the ground in Iraq, people who I listen to -- by the way, that's what you want your Commander-in-Chief to do. You don't want decisions being made based upon politics, or focus groups, or political polls. You want your military decisions being made by military experts. And they analyzed the plan and they said to me, and to the Iraqi government, this won't work unless we help them. There needs to be a bigger presence.... And so our commanders looked at the plan and said, Mr. President, it's not going to work until -- unless we support -- provide more troops. And so last night I told the country that I've committed an additional -- a little over 20,000 more troops, five brigades of which will be in Baghdad." Froomkin, still dodging the term "liar," calls Bush's tale "revisionist history" and says Bush lacks "believability."
• As recently as January 10, Bush was reported as saying bluntly that the idea to escalate the US troop presence didn't come from either the Iraqis or the American military commanders. And in today's New York Times, an article says, "A narrative pieced together from interviews with participants and from public testimony suggests that through much of the process, generals who had been on the ground in Iraq during the past year had favored that the new strategy begin with a substantially smaller force than the one that President Bush announced to the nation on Wednesday night. In the end, it was Mr. Bush who appeared to drive his commanders along to the conclusion that more troops were needed." The article continues, "White House officials were clearly sensitive on Thursday about any suggestions that the president countermanded his generals, and said his new plan had their full support. They said the generals sought and received assurances that the Iraqis would undertake political initiatives and end the practice of releasing militia figures who were friends of the government and captured by American or Iraqi forces." Statements from senior officials show that Bush began by favoring an entire troop withdrawal from Baghdad and letting the Iraqis fight for control of the city themselves, but that didn't happen. Froomkin theorizes that the influence of Dick Cheney, who has pushed for larger troop numbers in Iraq, won out.
• As for the Iraqi government, apparently Prime Minister al-Maliki didn't want an escalation, either. According to another New York Times story, "While senior officials in Washington have presented the new war plan as an American adaptation of proposals that were first put to Mr. Bush by Mr. Maliki when the two men met in the Jordanian capital of Amman in November, the picture that is emerging in Baghdad is quite different. What Mr. Maliki wanted, his officials say, was in at least one crucial respect the opposite of what Mr. Bush decided: a lowering of the American profile in the war, not the increase Mr. Bush has ordered." Al-Maliki also recommended that the US withdraw its troops from Baghdad.
• Although Froomkin refuses to make the connection, the editor of this site will. It's not particularly difficult, and it follows previous actions by Bush. Simply stated, Bush made a decision -- whether on his own, or pushed by Cheney -- to escalate the troop numbers in Iraq, and is now attempting to place the responsibility for the decision on someone else, in this case the Iraqi government and the US military commanders. (Washington Post)
• January 12: House Democrats defy the threat of a presidential veto in passing legislation mandating the government negotiate with pharmaceutical companies in efforts to lower prices for Medicare recipients.

  Medicare and Medicaid cuts; health care

  Democrats say senior citizens are too often saddled with horrendous prices for needed pharmaceuticals; Bush, the recipient of millions of dollars from drug companies in campaign donations and corporate gifts, says the system works fine as it is and the Democrats merely want another level of government intrusion into private business. The legislation passes with a strong, but not veto-proof, 255-170 vote tally. The Senate will take up the legislation in the days and weeks to come. The House drug legislation directs the secretary of Health and Human Services to bargain directly with drug companies, altering a fundamental provision of the 2003 law that created the Medicare drug benefit for seniors. That law, crafted by Republican House leaders and the White House, specifically left government out of the pricing decisions and placed the negotiations over cost in the hands of drug companies and the private insurers that sponsor the Medicare plans. "This legislation is simple and common sense," says Democrat John Dingell; "It will deliver lower prices to seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers." "Let us not solely entrust the negotiations of drug prices to the very companies who profit from the sales of these drugs," says Republican House member Jo Ann Emerson, one of 24 Republicans to vote for the new legislation. Not a single Democrat voted against the bill and all 170 no votes were cast by Republicans.
• As usual, Republicans are mustering fearmongering tactics to codify their corporate-friendly, consumer-hateful support of the bill. While House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says that the bill forces the secretary of HHS "to do what he was hired to do, to put the interest of the American people first," House Republican Ron Lewis intones, "If passed, this bill would allow the federal government to get into the medicine cabinets of millions of Medicare beneficiaries across the country." Lewis's objections are, of course, ludicrous, as Medicare already tracks the pharmaceuticals bought by beneficiaries under its program. The AARP has reversed itself from its support of the 2003 bill, praising the Democrats' legislation. AARP president William Novelli calls cheaper drugs for seniors "one of the building blocks needed to ensure that Americans have the health and financial security they deserve." The giant pharmaceutical company Merck takes a different tack, one more concerned with its profit margins: "Congress should be cautious of making changes to this successful program that would direct the government to interfere with price negotiations and could lead to price setting and restrictions on access to medicines." (The legislation specifically prohibits any such restrictions to drugs.) Advocates point to the success of the Veterans Administration drug plan, in which the government negotiates directly with drug manufacturers. The VA places limits on the types of drugs it covers and requires that the medicines be obtained through the mail or at VA hospitals and clinics. (AP/Yahoo! News, USA Today)
• January 12: House Democrat John Murtha, who heads the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, says he will force the closure of the detention facilities at both Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and says that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi "absolutely" supports his efforts.

  US torture allegations

  Murtha says that Congress shouldn't provide funds for sending more soldiers overseas until the Bush administration takes those steps and others, including restoring the Army's ability to respond to other crises by increasing troop strength of the strategic reserve -- those forces able to deploy urgently anywhere. Murtha, a decorated ex-Marine, says, "We have no ability to deploy and sustain a deployment in Iran or Korea, and the enemy knows this." Murtha says he will push for a plan to pressure the Bush administration to make the changes he seeks in order to get the money it wants for the war in Iraq. The administration is expected to propose a war-funding request as a supplemental budget bill next month. Murtha wants Bush to halt the 21,500-troop increase he recently announced and start bringing American forces home. He says he will not cut any funds for those already fighting. Murtha says the best way to control what course the war takes now is for Congress to attach conditions to war-spending bills, because Bush is unlikely to veto a bill that provides money to keep fighting. The Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo military prisons, where prisoners have been held without charges and abused, need to be closed to restore American credibility, Murtha says. Murtha brushes aside critics who say he's trying to micromanage the Defense Department. "I'll tell you, they need micromanagement," he growls. "They've been out of control." (McClatchy)
• January 12: The Justice Department is attempting to block the release of a government report that concludes the Bush administration leaked confidential and damaging information against a former prosecutor accused of bungling a high-profile terror trial.

  Secrecy of Bush administration

  The DOJ claims that the release of the report would violate employees' privacy. But former Assistant US Attorney Richard Convertino of Detroit says the DOJ already violated his privacy rights by revealing to the media that he was the subject of an internal ethics inquiry after he publicly criticized the Bush administration's counterterrorism strategy. The report rules out Convertino as a suspect in the leak case -- why Convertino would leak false allegations damaging only to himself is not addressed -- and the report does not identify anyone as the leaker. The report narrows down the list of possible leakers to around 30 prosecutors and DOJ officials in Washington and Detroit, all of whom deny leaking anything. The report concludes that Convertino "was not the source because he did not have access to all of the information." Convertino's attorney, Stephen Kohn, says the DOJ isn't interested in anyone's privacy rights, but is keenly interested in covering up evidence of its own misconduct. "There's nothing in that report that should not be out there in the public domain so people could assess the hypocrisy and misconduct of the Department of Justice," Kohn says. "Withholding it, I believe, is part of a cover-up."
• In 2003, Convertino, who has earned a plethora of commendations and awards for his service in law enforcement, was removed as the lead prosecutor in the famous "Detroit Sleeper Cell" trial, the nation's first trial of suspected terrorists after the 9/11 attacks. Convertino was accused of withholding evidence that would have proven the innocence of the four defendants accused of being a terrorist cell in Detroit. Three of the four were convicted, but had their convictions overturned because of prosecutorial misconduct; the fourth was acquitted. The DOJ did not consider the defense's objections until in September 2003, Convertino appeared before the Senate Finance Committee and disclosed the lack of DOJ support of anti-terrorism prosecutions despite the large Congressional appropriations to DOJ for this purpose post-9/11. Immediately afterward, Justice Department officials began to retaliate against Convertino by raising allegations of misconduct. In a January 17, 2004 article in the Detroit Free Press, it was reported that DOJ officials had released the name of a confidential informant and violated a court sealing order related to the sentencing hearing of this confidential informant as part of an effort to argue that Convertino had lied about his contacts with the Senate; these actions by the DOJ officials are patently illegal. Convertino believes that the DOJ's motive for violating the court order was to leak information that would discredit his testimony before the Senate. Since then, Convertino has alleged, the DOJ has continued to leak information to the news media that should be protected under the Privacy Act in order to smear and discredit the former prosecutor. The January 2004 article, citing anonymous DOJ sources, alleged that Convertino was removed from the case because of his misconduct during the trial.
• In March 2006, Convertino was himself indicted for obstructing justice in the "sleeper cell"terror trial and in another case. The criminal case continues against Convertino, as does his civil lawsuit against the Justice Department.
• Convertino's case parallels the criminal case of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff to Dick Cheney who is accused of covering up information surrounding the administration's leak of the identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame Wilson. Both cases feature administration officials trying to discredit critics by illegally leaking sensitive information and then covering up those leaks. Plame believes her status was revealed as retribution for comments her husband, Joseph Wilson, made about the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. Like Convertino, Plame and Wilson are suing the Bush administration for the leak. In the administration's eyes, "Anything you want to do to people who go off the reservation is fair game," says Melanie Sloan, the lawyer for Plame and Wilson. (AP/Forbes, Wikipedia)
• January 12: Democratic senator Jim Webb introduces his first bill in Congress, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007.

  US veterans

  Liberal blogger Bob Geiger, himself a veteran, says that Webb "did more for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan on his first day in the Senate than the man he ousted, George Felix Allen, did in the entire previous Congress." The legislation will provide America's newest veterans with educational benefits similar to those provided in the famous GI Bill in the years following World War II. Webb says of the bill, "As a veteran who hails from a family with a long history of military service, I am proud to offer this bill as my first piece of legislation in the United States Senate. The GI bill program was designed to help veterans readjust to civilian life, avoid high levels of unemployment, and give veterans the opportunity to receive the education and training that they missed while bravely serving in the military." Webb's bill will replace the Montgomery GI Bill, which provides far less benefits and requires soldiers to contribute to the fund, and which Webb calls "simply inefficient after 9/11." Webb's bill will pay for veterans' tuition, books, fees, and other training costs, while also providing a monthly stipend of $1,000 for living expenses, thus making it much more possible for a large number of veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan to actually be able to complete a college education. "The United States has never erred when it has made sustained new investments in higher education and job training," Webb says. "Enacting the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 is not only the right thing to do for our men and women in uniform, but it also is a strong tonic for an economy plagued by growing disparities in wealth, stagnant wages, and the outsourcing of American jobs. ...Better-educated veterans have a more positive readjustment experience. This experience lowers the costs of treating post-traumatic stress disorder and other readjustment-related difficulties." Geiger, a beneficiary of the GI bill, writes, "A robust GI Bill set the tone for my adult life and Webb's bill will pave the way for a new generation of Veterans to get the same kick-start to a healthy post-military life." (Bob Geiger)
• January 12: Federal judge Marcia Cooke orders a three-month delay in the trial of accused al-Qaeda operative Jose Padilla while Padilla's mental competency is assessed.

  Islamist terrorism

  Padilla, once accused by the Justice Department of planning to detonate a "dirty bomb" on American soil, is now accused of being part of a North American terrorist cell. Padilla was held for over three years without charge after Bush classified him as an "enemy combatant," until in late 2005 he was added to a Miami terrorism-support case after Bush officials worried that the courts would not support Padilla's indefinite detention. Apparently all charges related to the "dirty bomb" accusations have been dropped. Padilla's lawyers claim he was tortured while in the Navy brig, a contention the Justice Department and Pentagon have repeatedly denied. Mental experts hired by Padilla's lawyers have filed court papers saying that Padilla suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and cannot adequately assist his legal defense team. "This is a case that has to be done right. If additional time is needed, then it is time well spent," says his attorney, Anthony Natale. (USA Today)
• January 12: The Bush administration has fired US attorney Carol Lam of California and seven other US attorneys, largely for political reasons, and used a little-known provision of the USA Patriot Act to avoid Senate confirmations of their replacements.

  US Attorney firings

  Lam, a Bush appointee who took her job in 2002, is famous for her dogged prosecutions of politicians and corporate executives, and recently led the prosecution of former GOP House member Randy Cunningham. The excuse given for Lam's firing is her supposed failure to focus more on smuggling and gun issues. According to local lawyers who know her work, her real failing is not kowtowing to the US Justice Department. "It's virtually unprecedented to fire a US Attorney absent some misconduct in office," says criminal defense attorney Michael Attanasio, a former federal prosecutor. "This office has clearly made a priority of investigating and prosecuting white collar offenses and has had occasional success doing so. One would think that would be valued by any administration, even if it meant fewer resources were devoted to routine and repetitive border crimes." The relevant portion of the Patriot Act reauthorization is Section 502, signed into law in March 2006. It changed the law regarding the appointment of US Attorneys; whereas before the relevant federal district court would have appointed a replacement within 120 days after the Attorney General picked one, now that pick stands without challenge, allowing an "interim" replacement to serve indefinitely. Days after the news of the firings broke, Republican senator Arlen Specter confirmed that he inserted the language into the reauthorization act at the last minute, just before it was voted on by Congress. It is unlikely that any but a few high-ranking Republicans knew of the insertion before the vote was taken.
• Days later, Lam's counterpart in California's Northern District, Kevin Ryan, announces that he, too, is leaving his position. Ryan refuses to give any details, calling it a "mutually agreeable decision with Washington" for him to step down and telling his staff that "for some months now, I have been considering the possibility of pursuing other challenges for a variety of personal and professional reasons." Ryan replaced Robert Mueller, who went on to head the FBI. Ryan is best known for prosecuting cases of corporate fraud, steroid use in sports, and gang-related crimes; he has been criticized by some Justice Department officials for poor management skills.
• Attorney General Alberto Gonzales denies charges of politicizing the hiring and firing of US Attorneys, saying that his expanded powers are necessary because federal judges, who previously had appointed replacement US attorneys, are susceptible to cronyism and might appoint unqualified candidates. Unfortunately, there is reason to believe that Gonzales himself may be displaying the same failings that he is attributing to unspecified judges.
• Lam has fallen afoul of Republican House member Darrell Issa, an outspone opponent of immigration, who accuses her office of "an appalling record of refusal to prosecute even the worst criminal alien offenders." But Mario Conte, a former federal attorney and now a law professor, asks, "What do they want her to do, lock up Mexico? I'm sure that Carol, in her role, is simply not able to accommodate everybody's desires of what they think the US Attorney should be doing in this district." Between Lam's prosecution of Issa's close colleague Cunningham -- a case which continues, with related defendents -- and other high-profile cases against San Diego city councilmen and a national health-care corporation, Lam is obviously stepping on some toes.
• US attorneys are usually appointed by the president and require Senate approval. They typically serve the same term as the president that appointed them, and are replaced when a new president is elected. However, a provision in the Patriot Act that was revised last year allows the Attorney General to appoint interim US Attorneys for indefinite terms when vacancies arise, without Senate confirmation. Filling interim vacancies had been the responsibility of the district court. Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein accuses the Bush administration of "pushing out US Attorneys from across the country under the cloak of secrecy. ...We don't know how many US Attorneys have been asked to resign -- it could be two, it could be ten, it could be more. No one knows." (The number continues to escalate.) Feinstein says the administration is abusing its executive power by trying to circumvent the Senate confirmation process. She and two colleagues, Pat Leahy and David Pryor, proposed legislation on January 11 to restore appointment authority to the district court when a vacancy occurs and an interim leader is needed.
• Feinstein later identifies 7 attorneys who have either been fired or resigned under pressure, including New Mexico district attorney David Iglesias, Arkansas district attorney H.E. Cummins, and others -- a second California DA, Nevada, Texas. Washington, and Arizona. Iglesias says, "I was asked to resign. I asked [why] and wasn't given any answers. I ultimately am OK with that. We all take these jobs knowing we serve at the pleasure of the president." Cummins later tells the Wall Street Journal that "a top Justice official asked for his resignation in June, saying the White House wanted to give another person the opportunity to serve." He later says he was asked to resign for political reasons. Cummins was replaced by Timothy Griffin, who worked in the White House and for the Republican National Committee, an appointment held up by Feinstein while she looks into the entire imbroglio. Feinstein says, "Recently, it came to my attention that the Department of Justice has asked several US Attorneys from around the country to resign their positions -- some by the end of this month -- prior to the end of their terms not based on any allegation of misconduct. In other words, they are forced resignations. I have also heard that the Attorney General plans to appoint interim replacements and potentially avoid Senate confirmation by leaving an interim US Attorney in place for the remainder of the Bush administration. How does this happen? The Department sought and essentially was given new authority under a little known provision in the Patriot Act Reauthorization to appoint interim appointments who are not subject to Senate confirmation and who could remain in place for the remainder of the Bush administration."
• Perhaps most interestingly in Lam's case, Feinstein says she has heard a "rumor" that Lam would be subpoeaning other Republican House members in connection with cases related to Cunningham's. If this is the case -- and further investigation shows that it is true, not just of Lam, but of other forcibly removed US Attorneys -- then it paints a disturbing picture of the Justice Department firing US Attorneys to prevent them from possibly finding Republicans guilty of criminal behavior.
  The more that develops in this case, the more politicized it seems. Timothy Griffin, the intended replacement as the Arkansas District Attorney, worked in Karl Rove's office doing "opposition research" -- digging up dirt -- on Democrats. This has been most of Griffin's career, as a dirt-digger for the Republican Party, for the last ten years, making his qualifications for the office questionable at best. Before working for Rove, he served as the research director for the Republican National Committee, a position he was promoted to after serving as the deputy dirt-digger. From 1995 through 1996, he dug up dirt on Henry Cisneros for the Republicans. And just after that, he worked for Republican House member Dan Burton, investigating the Democratic National Committee for putatively illegal contributions from Asian sources. In 2000, when he was in charge of digging up dirt on Al Gore, Griffin had a poster hanging on the wall behind his desk which read: "On my command -- unleash hell on Al." (San Diego Union-Tribune, TPM Muckraker, TPM Muckraker, Wall Street Journal/TPM Muckraker, Talking Points Memo, TPM Muckraker, San Francisco Chronicle, AP/TPM Muckraker)
• January 12: The National Conference on Media Reform begins in Memphis. The conference is sponsored by the Free Press organization, a nonpartisan organization determined to help the media reform itself away from corporate sycophancy and towards a new independence and willingness to investigate government and corporate entities.

  Conservative media slant

  In particular, Free Press is working to combat what founder Robert McChesney calls the "increasing consolidation and homogenization of broadcasting." Another hot debate topic will be discussions on "net neutrality," the effort to keep the Internet relatively deregulated and not overcome by corporate content by the turnover of the Internet to a group of telecommunications firms. The conference brings nearly 3,000 media professionals, academics, and activists from across the country together with a roster of media celebrities, critics, politicians, policy makers, and movie stars. "The media are in a state of deep, deep crisis, and it's universally acknowledged that the state of journalism in America has disintegrated," says McChesney, a media critic and research professor at the University of Illinois. "And I learned a long time ago that the only way you can fight organized money is with organized people." He describes the communications industry as an "oligopoly," wherein an ever-smaller number of extremely profitable companies determines what we read and view and controls its distribution with virtually no oversight. He says this combination of money and influence allows Big Media to impact government regulatory policies without properly informing the public or having to engage in open debate. A 2006 report by the Project for Excellence in Journalism agrees, saying, "[T]he decades-long battle between idealists and accountants is now over. The idealists have lost." Media consolidation and market forces have "aided the efforts of newsmakers to control what the public knows." McChesney hopes the conference will help galvanize Congress to take action, perhaps by adding regulations to telecommunications corporations limiting the amount of control one firm can have over a particular market.
• The list of confirmed speakers and performers includes: FCC commissioners Jonathan Adelstein and Michael Copps; author Ben Bagdikian; blogger Duncan "Atrios" Black; author Eric Boehlert; PBS's David Brancaccio; David Brock of Media Matters for America; Adrienne Maree Brown of the Ruckus Society; Jeff Chester from the Center for Digital Democracy; REACHip-Hop's Rosa Clemente; US representative Steve Cohen; MSNBC commentator Flavia Colgan; Mark Cooper of the Consumer Federation of America; former MSNBC talk show host Phil Donahue; Jane Fonda; Danny Glover; Amy Goodman from Democracy Now!; Reverend Ben Hooks; Reverend Jesse Jackson; journalist and author Bill Moyers; media critic Norman Solomon; famed political columnist and White House correspondent Helen Thomas; the Bar-Kays; the North Mississippi Allstars; and others.
• In 2003, the Senate, responding to an outcry among the citizenry against the FCC's vote to allow almost-complete monopolization of the telecommunications industry, thwarted the FCC's attempt at what it ingenuously called "deregulation." But in June 2006, the FCC announced that it would again consider further deregulation as well as a possible modification of rules governing cross-ownership no longer deemed to be in the "public interest." McChesney says angrily, "The word deregulation is propaganda. Deregulation sounds really good, because who wants to be regulated? But our media system has never been a free-market system. From day one it's been based on subsidies, policies, licenses." FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelman, who voted against deregulation, says that one area that has suffered tremendously is that of investigative journalism. "An investigative journalist who uncovers corruption in city hall can save a community millions," he says, but notes that currently, investigative journalism only comprises 0.5% of all broadcast content. In contrast, 14% of all content is devoted to paid infomercials. "Sometimes, the relatively small cost of supporting that kind of journalism is more than a [media] company is willing to pay."
• McChesney says that local television news is particularly bad: "The one thing all Americans agree upon is they think their local TV news is the worst in the country. ...Wherever you go, people think that. And in a way, they're all right. Because it's so terrible everywhere." James Redmond of the University of Memphis's Journalism Department agrees, calling local TV news "mostly schtick" and "cheap theatrics," and saying that local media outlets around the country are "way too hung up on what we call market-driven news...rather than providing people what they need. ...I don't think anybody -- anybody -- in print or in television in this market does serious news well." The question of local media is the first one on the conference agenda. "The whole premise of American freedom of the press has been having strong independent local media," says McChesney. "That's been the hallmark of our country. We have to come up with policies that get us back to that point, where we can have competing newsrooms with well-paid journalists. Now, how we get there is what we have to study and debate and kick around. We don't have the magic button to push."
• One of the biggest problems with local media, from a business perspective, is its lack of profitability. Corporate media, particularly daily newspapers, are plummeting in value, and that corrodes a corporation's willingness to continue supporting them, no matter how much of a social necessity an independent, vibrant, well-funded news daily is to a community.
• Net neutrality is another burning issue, one ill-covered by the mainstream media but of great interest among Internet mavens and bloggers as well as privacy and media reform advocates. "The telecoms want to turn the Internet into a tiered system of service, predicated on the idea that with a privatized Internet, some people will be on the outside and some people will be on the inside," McChesney says. "It's all predicated on the idea that some people have a lot of money and will pay a lot of money not to be on the outside. Look, if I'm a shareholder in AT&T or Comcast and the people at AT&T or Comcast aren't doing everything they can to junk net neutrality, of course I want somebody to be fired." Adelstein says, "More and more people are recognizing the power of the Internet and the role it plays in their daily lives. When you threaten people's ability to freely access information, they see that as a personal affront." (Memphis Commercial Appeal, Memphis Flyer, National Conference for Media Reform [extensive audio and video links])
• January 12: One of the most powerful presentations at the National Conference of Media Reform (see above item) is given by veteran PBS journalist Bill Moyers, now the president of the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy, as he challenges some 3,000 progressive activists and communicators to take back the telling of America's story from the mainstream media.

  Conservative media slant

  Moyers gives a sordid litany of corporate media malfeasance, from the lackluster and largely non-skeptical reporting of the Bush administration's launch of the war in Iraq to the lack of attention paid to a domestic landscape of increasing economic disparity and racial segregation. Virtually uncontrolled media consolidation over the past decade, he says, has meant a loss of independent journalism and created "more narrowness and homogenization in content and perspective, so that what we see on our couch is overwhelmingly the view from the top." It is in this environment that the Bush administration can, for example, can "turn the escalation of a failed war and call it a surge, as if it were a current of electricity through a wire instead of blood spurting from the ruptured veins of a soldier," says Moyers. On the domestic front, "the question of whether or not our economic system is truly just is off the table for investigation and discussion, so that alternative ideas, alternative critiques, alternative visions never get a hearing," he says. "It is clear what we have to do. We have to tell the story ourselves."
• Moyers says what is needed is a two-pronged attack. Activists should continue pressing the established media to live up to the public service obligations of the Communications Act of 1934, obligations that have been trampled in the past two decades as both political parties succumb to the influence of enormously powerful telecommunications and entertainment company lobbies. At the same time, the Internet and digital communication tools allow every citizen to become a Thomas Paine, he says, challenging the establishment with an alternative vision of social justice and government for the common good. It makes it possible, he says, for citizens to say to those who seek to exert imperial control over both government and the means to be informed about government, "you no longer own the copyright to America's story." (TomPaine)
• January 12: London Times political analyst Bronwen Maddox writes that Bush is ignoring seven key indicators from the Iraqi government that means the escalation of troops in Iraq is almost certain to fail.

  Iraq war and occupation

  Maddox writes, "President Bush's 'surge' assumes that the Iraqi government shares his goals, and that given a bit of help with security and a bit more time, they will get there together. That is wrong. Nouri al-Maliki, the Prime Minister, is not quite the well-meaning but ineffective figure portrayed in Bush's plan. He has done at least seven things in the past six months which show that he plans to help Shi'as to secure control of every part of government and has no notion of sharing power with Sunnis."
• Maddox writes that those seven things are:
  • Al-Maliki's invitation to several Iranian officials to meet with his government just before Christmas; the US, angered by the invitation, arrested the Iranians.
  • Al-Maliki's insistence on hanging Saddam Hussein in spite of US requests to delay the execution in order to settle out lingering legal questions.
  • Al-Maliki's orders in November to US forces to lift roadblocks they had put in place in their attempt to track down a missing US soldier.
  • On October, 24, after General George Casey and US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad jointly announced, with Bush's backing, a new "timetable" for quelling the violence, al-Maliki denied that he had signed up to any such plan, a public rebuff to the US. Iraq was sovereign, he said, and no one was going to dictate timetables. The current plan sets no dates on any of its "benchmarks" for the Iraqi government.
  • Al-Maliki disavowed the October 25 raid by US and Iraqi forces on Sadr City in searches for Mahdi Army militants; al-Maliki said he had not been consulted and insisted "that it will not be repeated."
  • Al-Maliki has repeatedly overruled urgent US requests to crack down on the Shi'a militias and to prevent the slaughter of Sunnis.
  • During Israel's attack on Lebanon in the summer, al-Maliki condemned the Israeli action and arranged a high-profile meeting in Tehran with Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the Iranian President, who has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.
  If al-Maliki has any interest in creating a multi-ethnic Iraq where the rights and interests of all Iraqis (particularly the Sunnis) are represented, that interest is not apparent. In fact, it seems clear that al-Maliki wants US troops out of Baghdad entirely, in order to allow the Shi'ite militias to continue their "ethnic cleansing" of the Sunni minority. Leading Shi'as have openly opposed the idea of a US escalation as an encroachment into Iraqi sovereignty. Maddox writes, "There lies the rub. They have taken the US at its word -- that it has transferred sovereignty to Iraq's elected leaders, and is staying only to advise and help. Let us run our country, then, and tell the US how to help, is their answer. But after years of suppression by the Sunni elite, the leaders of the Shi'a majority seem in little mood to make concessions to a minority, although they go through the motions of acknowledging the principle in their pledges to the US. Yet the al-Maliki Government has ignored every target the US set it: last year, this summer, and again in October. The US asked it to put into action a plan for sharing oil revenues across the country, and cracking down on militias, both to help Sunnis; it has done neither. This week Bush asked it for the same things, once more. It is hard to see why it will oblige, when it has felt no need to do so before." (London Times)
• January 12: Author and media ethicist Elliot Cohen writes that the media has not significantly reported one of the most critical aspects of the story of Bush's "surge:" Bush's "arrogant disregard for the will of the American people" and how easily "it could...have been predicted in light of the facts surrounding his administration.

  Iraq war and occupation

  These facts paint a dismal, coherent picture of a burgeoning dictatorship in America. Unfortunately, this story (but for a piecemeal, fragmented, censored version) never saw the light of day in the mainstream media." While Cohen's opening salvo reads distressingly like conspiracy theorizing, the remainder of his article provides sobering facts to support his contention.
• Cohen writes, "This alarming story is of a 'president' who has made 'the facts fit the policy' in cajoling and deceiving his nation into going to war in the first place; who has abused the constitutional authority of Congress by getting it to transfer its war-declaring power to him under false pretenses (the false promise that war would be a last resort while all along the war plans were on his desk); who has dishonored the Fourth Amendment by systematically engaging without a court warrant in wire tapping of American citizens' e-mail and phone messages while at the same time publicly denying that any such warrant-less wiretapping was being done; who has acquired the private phone records of every American citizen from the major telecom companies (which corporations themselves having been in the pocket of the Bush administration); who has successfully backed a move by the FCC to foreclose common carriage over the Internet pipes, portending the potential, future downfall of the free Internet...; who has invaded personal and confidential banking records; who has cancelled the right of habeas corpus for 'unlawful enemy combatants' while defining the latter as virtually anyone whom he deems 'hostile' to the interests of the United States; who keeps an 'Enemies List' that includes journalists who oppose his policies; who has threatened journalists who publish leaked information with prosecution for treason; whose high officials (apparently with his permission) have outted covert CIA operative Valerie Plame in order to get even with her husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson, for exposing falsified intelligence that Saddam had attempted to acquire uranium 'yellowcake' from Niger in order to build nuclear weapons; who has sanctioned infiltrating peaceful, citizen, anti-war groups and blocking freedom of speech of anti-war demonstrators; who has sanctioned martial law and the doing away with Posse Comitatus (legal prohibition against use of military for domestic law enforcement) in order to deal with natural disasters; who has paid journalists like Armstrong Williams to tout the administration's 'no child left behind' policy, and who has hired PR companies to seamlessly inject phony news about the successes of the war effort, among other hot button topics, into network affiliate news; who has disregarded the Geneva Conventions, setting himself up instead as the arbiter of the meaning of torture; who has issued signing statements exempting himself from legislation forbidding cruel and inhumane treatment of prisoners; who has knowingly permitted (and may well have ordered) the abuses at Abu Ghraib; who was installed (not elected) by the Supreme Court in 2000, and, by all indications of exit polling, was never truly elected to office in 2004."
• All of this is supported by indisputable facts, most of which are detailed elsewhere in this site. Put together, it is difficult to draw any other conclusion -- Bush may not be a dictator in fact, but he has exercised many of the powers and perogatives of a tyrant, with the acquiescance, the complicity, and sometimes the blessing of the Congress, the courts, the media, and the American people. Cohen writes, "This is a man who, on at least three different occasions, had announced that dictatorship would be easier than democracy as long as he was the dictator; who along with his cronies, such as Tom DeLay, have struck out at 'activist' judges for not toeing the administration line, prompting former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to warn about the impending danger of lapsing into dictatorship."
• Cohen reminds readers of how Bush's move towards tyranny fits into the context of the Project for a New American Century, the neoconservative organization who not only anticipated 9/11 by claiming that it would take a "catalytic [and] catastrophic" event to push the US into exerting military dominance over the globe, but actually called for such an event to happen: "This is a group, backed by the oil and weapons industries, whose aim has been to use military force to overthrow any 'regime' that opposes American corporate interests (in particular, Iran and Iraq), and to send in its behemoth corporate partners like Halliburton to take control of their natural resources (oil). Put bluntly, the goal of Bush and company is to rule the world. This spells 'Dictatorship' -- with a capital 'D.' Yet the average American knows little or nothing about PNAC."
• Cohen gives credit where credit is due for those "exceptions to the rule" in the mainstream, corporate media who have begun to speak more plainly about the excesses and crimes of the administration, "probably because the public tide has turned against the Bush administration and these companies cannot afford to disenfranchise the majority of Americans who are tired of listening to White House white washings." Of course, Fox News continues to push White House-sourced propaganda, "some of the unprincipled media chameleons such as MSNBC's Chris Matthews have only recently begun to speak out against Bush's war effort. Only one network anchor, namely MSNBC Countdown host Keith Olbermann, has been a trail blazer." But the corporate-owned media "need collectively to set the record straight if only for the sake of their own survival," Cohen says. "Under their watch, a dictator has risen to power. These news organizations have betrayed their constitutional charge as 'Fourth Estate' during a time when checks and balances were so direly needed. They now need to come clean with the American people. They need to make abundantly clear that symbolic, toothless gestures of congressional dissent are not sufficient measures to counter the unconscionable efforts of a dictator to spend hundreds of thousands of lives -- American and Iraqi alike--to build a global empire designed to fill the pockets of oil barons...with the spoils of war."
• The media is ignoring the fact that Bush's goal of establishing a permanent US military presence in Iraq is part of the PNAC's publicly stated goals. The next step, according to the PNAC game plan, is Iran, and Bush has already begun moving in that direction. There is, Cohen writes, "nothing 'temporary' about this 'surge.' It is a war without any foreseeable end, and it will predictably spread beyond Iraq unless Congress does its job, and does it now." One of the biggest reasons the Vietnam debacle was finally brought to heel was the vigilance of some mainstream media outlets in providing extensive coverage of antiwar protests as well as graphic footage of young Americans struck down in the jungles of Southeast Asia. Cohen observes, "Like Bush, Nixon warned against the 'enemy' attacking our homeland unless it was defeated on its home turf. Like Bush, Nixon resolved to 'surge' rather than to back down. And like Bush, Nixon believed he was above the law. But Nixon resigned in disgrace rather than face being thrown out. The Democratic Congress has the ability to affect a similar end to the present dictatorial reign, but already it has pledged not to impeach, and what it now proposes to do is express toothless disapproval like children playing make-believe."
• Cohen says that it is up to the media to reclaim its role as watchdog and alarm-sounder, "exposing the inept docility of Congress by once and for all giving a coherent and honest account of all of the facts surrounding this presidency. It needs to tell the American people the truth, in no uncertain terms, about what the stakes are in permitting a dictator to continue to thrive. Armed with the facts, Americans then need to pressure their representatives in Congress to do their jobs as though the survival of the free world depends on it, because it most assuredly does. The days are numbered, and the prospects grow dimmer the more emboldened this dictator gets." (Buzzflash)

 

Quick Navigation Menu

• Main Page

• 1897-1960
• 1961-1970
• 1971-1979
• 1980
• 1981
• 1982
• 1983
• 1984
• 1985
• 1986
• 1987
• 1988
• 1989
• 1990
• 1991
• 1992
• 1993
• 1994
• 1995
• 1996
• 1997
• 1998
• 1999
• 2000
• 2001
• 2002

2003 Month by Month

• Jan 03
• Feb 03
• Mar 03
• Apr 03
• May 03
• Jun 03
• Jul 03
• Aug 03
• Sep 03
• Oct 03
• Nov 03
• Dec 03

2004 Month by Month

• Jan 04
• Feb 04
• Mar 04
• Apr 04
• May 04
• Jun 04
• Jul 04
• Aug 04
• Sep 04
• Oct 04
• Nov 04
• Dec 04

2005 Month by Month

• Jan 05
• Feb 05
• Mar 05
• Apr 05
• May 05
• Jun 05
• Jul 05
• Aug 05
• Sep 05
• Oct 05
• Nov 05
• Dec 05

2006 Month by Month

• Jan 06
• Feb 06
• Mar 06
• Apr 06
• May 06
• Jun 06
• Jul 06
• Aug 06
• Sep 06
• Oct 06
• Nov 06
• Dec 06

2007 Month by Month

• Jan 07
• Feb 07
• Mar 07
• Apr 07
• May 07
• Jun 07
• Jul 07
• Aug 07
• Sep 07
• Oct 07
• Nov 07
• Dec 07

Other Pages On This Site

• 9/11
• They Said
• Stolen!
• Katrina
• Who Is?
• Citations
• Links
• Biblio
• Impeach
• Imperial
• Cabinet
• Rationale
• Assist
• Updates