Flexible Reality
Saturday, September 25, 2004
No More La-La Land BS Please !!
‘Staying the Course’ Isn’t an OptionIraq is probably already lost, says former military-policy planner Mike Turner.
But there are still some smart strategies for Kerry to adopt
WEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY
By Mike Turner
Newsweek
Updated: 5:31 p.m. ET Sept. 24, 2004
Sept. 24 - One of the great mysteries of this election is the inability of John Kerry to challenge George W. Bush on his national-security credentials and to hold his administration accountable for its monumental failure in Iraq. These two issues remain the soft underbelly of the Bush campaign. That the Kerry campaign hasn't effectively exploited them is disheartening. That he's allowed Bush to actually spin them into strengths is mind-boggling. Since the American people seem to be buying the GOP's reality-TV version of events in Iraq, let's take a hard look at the military realities.
From a purely military standpoint, the war in Iraq is an unmitigated disaster. This administration failed to make even a cursory effort at adequately defining the political end state they sought to achieve by removing Saddam Hussein, making it impossible to precisely define long-term military success. That, in turn, makes it impossible to lay out a rational exit strategy for U.S. troops. Like Vietnam, the military is again being asked to clean up the detritus of a failed foreign policy. We are nose-deep in a protracted insurgency, an occupying Christian power in an oil-rich, Arab country. That country is not now and has never been a single nation. A single, unified, democratic Iraq comprised of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis is a willfully ignorant illusion at best.
Two thirds of America's combat brigades are now tied down in this war which, under present conditions, is categorically unwinnable. Having alienated virtually every major ally who might help, our troops are simply targets. If Bush is re-elected, there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq:
* Four years from now, America will have 5,000 dead servicemen and women and an untold number of dead Iraqis at a cost of about $1 trillion, yet still be no closer to success than we are right now, or
* The U.S. will be gone, and we will witness the birth of a violent breeding ground for Shiite terrorists posing a far greater threat to Americans than a contained Saddam.
To discern the truth about Iraq, Americans must simply look beyond the spin. This war is not some noble endeavor, some great struggle of good against evil as the Bush administration would have us believe. We in the military have heard these grand pronouncements many times before by men who have neither served nor sacrificed. This war is an exercise in colossal stupidity and hubris which has now cost more than 1,000 American military lives, which has empowered Al Qaeda beyond anything those butchers might have engineered on their own and which has diverted America's attention and precious resources from the real threat at the worst possible time. And now, in a supreme act of truly breathtaking gall, this administration insists the only way to fix Iraq is to leave in power the very ones who created the nightmare.
Absent an unequivocal plan from Kerry, the Bush administration's "stay the course" strategy has become the de facto solution. Yet this is a recipe for even greater tragedy, setting the stage for far more crippling attacks on Americans. It means adhering to a plan that may very soon make it impossible for the U.S. to respond to significant threats from elsewhere against its vital strategic interests. The administration's policies are tearing down America's military readiness worldwide, while ignoring the real war on terror.
So what strategies should candidate Kerry propose? The first steps are patently obvious to anyone who has worked even briefly as a military policy planner. First, Americans must understand it is highly probable that Iraq is already lost. Americans must stop believing the never-ending litany of "happy thoughts" spewing forth from the Bush campaign and start thinking about our men and women dying wholesale in Iraq. Having acknowledged that painful reality and the genuine, long-term danger posed to Americans by remaining in Iraq, here are some obvious actions for Kerry to propose at his first debate next week with Bush.
1. Define the political end state. A "free and democratic Iraq" is not a realistic political goal. A loose coalition of Kurdistan (Kurds), a Central Arab Republic (Sunni) and a Southern Arab Republic (Shia) might be. Whatever the goal, the political objective must precede the military objective, and it must be forged by the experts at the State Department, not the Pentagon.
2. Given a precisely defined political objective, the president must obtain an accurate and honest field assessment from our senior military commanders, who must be free to make that assessment without recrimination. These commanders must decide if a military mission supporting the precisely defined political objective is possible and realistic. If it is, we need to enter Iraq with overwhelming military force to achieve success. If our military leaders determine it is not—and I believe that is very likely—we must pull our troops out now. Under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a renowned autocrat and micromanager, this type of honest assessment by the military is impossible.
3. We must obtain United Nations mandate for a long-term solution to Iraq. The U.N. may be largely impotent, inefficient and ineffectual, but it has become the basis for legitimizing military operations around the world. Since the case for defending ourselves against a supposedly imminent threat is now dead—if it ever was alive—we must obtain international, political top cover for all future operations.
4. We must obtain the support of our allies for a newly crafted, long-term political solution for the region. This will enable us to share the burden of rebuilding Iraq, though it may require some big sticks and even bigger carrots.
If the Bush administration remains in power, failure in Iraq is a virtual certainty. "Staying the course" during a crisis spiraling rapidly downward will cost thousands of American and Iraqi lives, will continue to sap the operational readiness of this nation's armed forces, and will continue to strengthen Al Qaeda's hand. To paraphrase FDR, it's time to change horses. The one we're on is about to drown.
Retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner is a former military planner who served on the U.S. Central Command planning staff for operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Before retiring in 1997, he spent four years as a strategic policy planner for the Joint Chiefs of Staff specializing in Middle East/Africa affairs. He is a 1973 graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy and a former fighter pilot and air-rescue helicopter pilot.
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc.
Friday, September 24, 2004
The inflation adjusted value of the US minimum wage is now $4.73, the lowest it has ever been. Minimum wage earners make up about 9% of the working population. In 2004 the mimumum wage is 33% of the average hourly wage, the lowest since 1949. It has been eight years since the last minimum wage increase. Gov. Schwarzeneggar vetoed a recent attempt to increase the California minimum wage by 50 cents per hour. Florida has placed an initiative on the 2004 ballot to increase the State mimimum wage by 50 cents per hour. Gov. Bush is opposed.
Salary Differential: Workers vs CEO's
Workers, top executives pay gap skyrocketsDetroit Free Press
Dec. 19rh, 2002
By Julie Moran Alterio, and Jerry Gleeson / Westchester (N.Y.) Journal News
A September 2001 study by National Bureau of Economic Research in Cambridge, Mass., compared income of average workers with the average compensation of the country's 100 top CEOs. The figures were adjusted to 1998 dollars.
In 1970, the average full-time worker earned $32,522, according to the National Institute of Pension Administrators. During that same year, average compensation among the top 100 CEOs was $1.25 million, according to Forbes magazine's annual survey, which includes salary, bonus, the value of restricted stock awards and stock options exercised.
In 1999, the average worker's pay had climbed only slightly, to $35,864. The average compensation of the 100 top CEOs had increased more than 2,800 percent, to $37.5 million.
"Executives have experienced huge gains compared to the average pay," said economics professor Emmanuel Saez of University of California at Berkeley, one of the study's authors.
There are a variety of explanations, starting with the drastic drop in taxes on top earners. Back in the 1960s, the top tax rate was above 70 percent, Saez said, making high salaries less attractive. Today, the top rate is 38 percent and is due to drop to 35.
"At a time when tax rates were very high, in some sense paying executives a lot amounted to giving a lot to the government. So corporations were reluctant to do so," Saez said.
Today, a bigger share of the average CEO's compensation comes in forms other than wages.
Workers receive the bulk of their compensation through salary, although many also invest in 401(k) plans and receive modest stock options. That was once true for CEOs as well. In 1970, the top 100 CEOs derived 84.66 percent of their income from salary and just 15.34 percent from stock options and other compensation, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research study.
In 1999, salary accounted for just 9.73 percent of the compensation of top CEOs. Stock options provided 58.52 percent and other compensation accounted for 31.76 percent.
Because corporations can only deduct the first $1 million of CEO pay from their taxes, providing additional compensation in other forms becomes very attractive financially.
Corporate boards have been willing to pony up, but are the CEOs worth the fat paychecks? "My own belief is that they are not, but it's controversial because it's hard to answer that question scientifically," Saez said.
Florida's Efforts on Minimum Wage Increases
Hurrican Jeb Bears Down on Working PoorAmerican Progress Action
Sept. 24th, 2004
With Floridians still recovering from the economic destruction caused by hurricanes Charlie, Frances and Ivan, Jeb Bush and his corporate allies are determined to make matters even worse for low-income Floridians. Jeb and his big business supporters are working to defeat a November ballot initiative that would raise the minimum wage in Florida by one dollar, to $6.15 an hour for most employees.
If the measure passes, the Florida minimum wage would have a yearly cost-of-living adjustment equal to the inflation rate to ensure that the value of the minimum wage does not erode over time. The front group created by corporations to fight the initiative claims that the modest increase in the minimum wage "would cost businesses billions, lead employers to cut benefits and slow job growth in Florida." The proof? They polled themselves as to what they thought the impact would be.
Real economic analysis, released yesterday by the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute, demonstrates that the minimum wage increase would significantly benefit low-income Floridians and have a negligible impact on the state's business community. For more information on the effort to pass the initiative, check out Floridians for All.
BENEFITS TO WORKERS SUBSTANTIAL: For non-tipped hourly workers making minimum wage, the increase would mean an average raise of 7.3 percent. Other workers making up to $7.49 an hour would also receive substantial raises (from 2 to 6 percent), due to employers voluntarily raising wages to maintain a fair, graduated pay scale. This translates into increases in disposable income for low-income Floridians between $500 to $600 per year – allowing them to reduce debt, reduce work hours or purchase a car. The minimum wage increase would benefit 700,000 workers in Florida.
IMPACT ON BUSINESS MINIMAL: The American Progress study concluded that the total cost of the measure to private businesses in Florida would be $406 million. That amount represents just 0.4 percent of the total sales of these businesses, which was $928.7 billion in 2003. A clothing store, for example, could fully cover its increase costs by raising the price of a sweatshirt from $20.00 to $20.01. The tiny increase in costs will also be off-set, at least in part, by productivity gains. Wage increases have shown to lower absenteeism and raise morale. There is no objective evidence that the doomsday scenarios presented by the corporate front groups opposing the initiative – unemployment, relocation and inflation – would occur. John Podesta, CEO of American Progress, notes that after the federal minimum wage was raised in 1996, "over the next four years, 13 million jobs were created." Businesses in low-income neighborhoods will experience substantial increases in sales as the disposable income of residents increases.
MINIMUM WAGE ABYSMALLY LOW: Someone who makes the federal minimum wage of $5.15 – which is also the prevailing rate in Florida – and worked full time for 52 weeks a year would earn just $10,712. That amount is 28 percent below the federal poverty line. Thirty percent of workers who make up to twice the level of the poverty line faced hardships such as missing meals, being evicted from their housing or having their utilities disconnected. In 1968, the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation) was $8.49 – 40 percent higher than it is now. Raising the minimum wage can have a particularly positive impact on minority communities.
OPPOSITION OUT OF TOUCH: Rich McAllister, CEO of the Florida Retail Federation, an organization leading the charge to defeat the initiative, said on a conference call with reporters that "there would never be a good time to raise the minimum wage." McAllister added that "the minimum wage is an artificial number that means nothing." Embarrassed by McAllister's candor, another spokesman for the Florida Retail Federation later claimed that the comments made by the CEO of the organization to the reporter were "Rick's personal opinion" and did not represent the group's position. Small business owners, meanwhile, are more supportive of the initiative. Miami restauranteur Mark Soyka, asked about his thoughts on the initiative, said "my reaction is, from a humane perspective, I don't even know how they make it on $6.15 an hour."
Thursday, September 23, 2004
Enemy Combatants & the US Legal System
Thousands Arrested, Few Convicted in U.S. Terror WarThu Sep 23, 2004 05:43 PM ET
Reuters
By Caroline Drees, Security Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States has arrested thousands of people on terror charges since Sept. 11, 2001, holding some for years without charge, but has seen one high-profile case after another collapse.
Critics say the government is paying for hasty, politically motivated accusations it cannot prove, while backers argue that the U.S. legal system is simply unsuited for the war on terror.
In the most recent collapse, the military dropped spy charges on Wednesday against Syrian-American airman Ahmad al Halabi, who had faced the death penalty on accusations of aiding and abetting the enemy through espionage at the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Justice Department also said on Wednesday it had agreed to free U.S.-Saudi "enemy combatant" Yaser Esam Hamdi and return him to Saudi Arabia after holding him without charges -- for long stretches incommunicado -- for more than two years.
"I can't remember a time when the government has taken it on the chin as often as this in a single area," said lawyer Eugene Fidell, whose client, Army Chaplain James Yee, was accused in a separate Guantanamo Bay spy case before the military dropped all those charges.
Paul Rosenzweig, a legal expert at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said one reason for the government's legal problems was the difficulty of using evidence gleaned from intelligence work, which is often classified or might only be considered hearsay in court, no matter how good the source.
"Our federal criminal legal system is not set up for terrorists," he said. "Because these are important cases, we're seeing more of the warts. When we look really hard at a really big case, we see that our judicial system is imperfect."
But critics of government arrests and efforts to secure convictions in the war on terror say the problem is not the legal system. They say the crumbling cases prove prosecutors are being overzealous and sometimes sloppy in a bid to show the public they are serious about fighting terrorists.
"At the level of the individual cases ... it probably reflects haste, overreaction, a desire to show how much you're doing and not the usual degree of carefulness you would expect from federal prosecutors," said Joseph Onek, senior counsel of the Constitution Project activist group, who was a senior justice official under President Bill Clinton.
Gerry Spence -- whose Muslim client Brandon Mayfield was held for two weeks as a material witness in the Madrid train bombings before being released with an apology from the FBI -- accused the U.S. government of profiling and failing to do its homework.
"Then when they begin to look at the facts, they find out that what they've done is charged good American citizens with crimes that they are not guilty of," he said.
Critics also say Supreme Court rulings in June that placed the first limits on President Bush's war on terror showed the administration had overstepped its bounds.
"One reason the government hasn't succeeded in its overall strategy is because it was taking a position that was indefensible under U.S. constitutional law," Onek said.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice -- which filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the government in three terrorism cases, including Hamdi's -- said prosecutors were not being hasty, but trying to balance national security needs with legal constraints.
He said the Supreme Court rulings, which said terror suspects could use the U.S. legal system to challenge their confinement, had created major obstacles for prosecutors.
"The chips are stacked against the government. The hurdle is set very high. I think the government is doing the best they can under the situation where they find themselves," he said.
"Caution dictates that if you think you caught someone, or if you caught someone on the field of battle, to just let them go because you can't gather the evidence quick enough could be very dangerous for the country," Sekulow said.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Hue vs Faluja; Tonkin Gulf Resolution vs Resolution 114; Robert McNamara vs Paul Wolfowitz; Nguyen Cao Ky vs Ayad Allawi; Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap vs Abu Musab al-Zarqawi; etc, etc, etc.
Some Things That Are Not Equal
Support for US Troops Is NOT Equal to: Support for the Iraq WarSupport for Resolution 114 Is NOT Equal to: Support for the Invasion of Iraq by US Forces
Support for US Troops Is NOT Equal to: Support for military-personnel-instigated atrocities at Abu Ghrabi
Support for Pres. Bush Is NOT Equal to: Support for the entire Bush Administration agenda
Disapproval of the methods used to implement policy Is NOT Equal to: Disapproval of initial policy
Disapproval of the results of policy Is NOT Equal to: Disapproval of the initial policy, or implementation methods
Dislike for a Candidate Is NOT Equal to: Dislike for everyone who is like the Candidate
Liberators Are NOT Equal to: Occupiers
Terrorists Are NOT Equal to: Any force that fights asymetrically against a superior force
Scientific Theorums Are NOT Equal to: Revealed truths
A Desire for Church - State Separation Is NOT Equal to: Atheism, God-lessness, Devil Worship
Disapproval of "enemy combatant" detentions Is NOT Equal to: Soft on crime or retributive justice
Black and White Is NOT Equal to: Shades of grey
Respect for symbols Is NOT Equal to: Acceptance of everything associated with those symbols
Wearing One's Faith On Their Sleeve Is NOT Equal to: Practicing the principles of one's Faith
Bearing false witness Is NOT Equal to: Spinning truth to attain a higher value or virtue
A Vote Approving the Granting of Power to the President
Is NOT the same as Approving the Use of that Power!!
Or of Blanket Approval of the Strategic and Tactical Processes Devised by the Pentagon
President Bush to Send Iraq Resolution to Congress Today Remarks by the President in Photo Opportunity with Secretary of State Colin Powell
The Oval Office
Sept. 19, 2002: 9:50 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:
"Good morning. I appreciate our Secretary of State coming by to brief the Vice President and me and Condoleezza Rice about our progress in working with the United Nations, convincing the United Nations Security Council to firmly deal with a threat to world peace.
At the United Nations Security Council it is very important that the members understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake, that the Security Council must be firm in its resolve to deal with a truth threat to world peace, and that is Saddam Hussein. That the United Nations Security Council must work with the United States and Britain and other concerned parties to send a clear message that we expect Saddam to disarm. And if the United Nations Security Council won't deal with the problem, the United States and some of our friends will. That's the message the Secretary of State has delivered forcefully.
THE PRESIDENT: I'll be glad to answer a few calls -- answers, starting with Ron.
Q How many of our friends are willing to join the United States in this effort?
THE PRESIDENT: Ron, I think time will tell. I think you're going to see a lot of nations -- that a lot of nations love freedom. They understand the threat. They understand that the credibility of the United Nations is at stake. They heard me loud and clear when I said, either you can be the United Nations, a capable body, a body able to keep the peace, or you can be the League of Nations. And we're confident that people will follow our lead.
Q Sir, the chief weapons inspector is going to be briefing the U.N. Security Council today, and there have already been some reports that, in his talks with the Iraqis, that they're limiting access to certain sites. Are those reports true? And do you think they're trying to --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I haven't gotten a report from what he intends to say. But let me give you just some general observations. First of all, there are no negotiations to be held with Iraq. They have nothing to negotiate. They're the people who said that they would not have weapons of mass destruction. The negotiations are over. It is up to the U.N. Security Council to lay out resolutions that confirms what Iraq has already agreed to, see.
Secondly, I don't trust Iraq, and neither should the free world. For 11 years, they have deceived the world. They have said, we'll conform to resolutions. They've never conformed to resolutions. They've never conformed to the agreement that they laid out 11 years ago. Sixteen times they've defied Security resolutions.
And so, they -- the burden of proof is -- must be place squarely on their shoulders. But there's no negotiations about whether or not they've been telling the truth or not.
Let's see here -- Mark.
Q Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.
Q Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
THE PRESIDENT: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.
Q Will regime change be part of it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. That's the policy of the government. "
|======================================================|
Note: According to Pres. Bush, Resolution 114 authorizes 'the use of force to keep the peace', (a neologism which George Orwell spoke of in 1984), which allowed the Bush Administration to assert an absurd syllogism, namely: Congress granted me the authority to use force to make Saddam Hussein disarm, Saddam will not comply with Security Council demands to disarm, thus by authority of the Resolution I am declaring war on Iraq. And the extrapolation that since Congress overwhelming voted to give the President the authority to use force, it thereby approved his election to do so, and approved the manner, timing, preparations, and tactical operations of his strategic plan.
Nothing could be further from reality !...as John Kerry and others have pointed out repeatedly. Failing to see a distinction between the two levels of approval is hard for Non-Bushies to comprehend.
Equally troubling was the laundry list of items contained in Bush's concept of "disarm-ing" which preordained that Saddam would not comply with the legitimate goals of the Security Council resolutions, nor the spurious demands of the Bush Administration.
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
Illegal Corporate Political Contributions:
The Old Fashion Way Leads to Indictments
3 DeLay Aides Facing Charges in Fund InquiryNY Times
By GLEN JUSTICE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: September 22, 2004
WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 - Three aides who helped run a political action committee created by the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, were indicted by a grand jury in Texas on Tuesday on charges that included raising illegal corporate contributions and funneling them to state candidates during the 2002 elections.
Eight companies were also charged, including Sears Roebuck & Company and Cracker Barrel Old Country Store Inc.
The 32 separate indictments sprang from a two-year investigation by local prosecutors into Texans for a Republican Majority P.A.C., a committee created by Mr. DeLay that spent $1.5 million to help Republicans gain control of the Texas House. The Republicans then used that power to carve Texas into new Congressional districts that political analysts say will bring them at least five new seats in this year's elections.
The charges against the aides come at a time when Mr. DeLay himself is under investigation by the House ethics committee over accusations of improper fund-raising. News of the indictments led to fresh calls for the committee to move forward with its inquiry.
Positive Benefits of Walking Two Plus Miles Per Day for Seniors. (?)
Walking May Protect Against Alzheimer's And DementiaHealthtalk: Canada
September 21, 2004
Walking can reduce the risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer's disease, according to a new study by a University of Virginia School of Medicine research team.
According to the team, elderly men who are sedentary are twice as likely to to develop Alzheimer's disease compared to men who take part in a daily walk of 2 miles or more per day.
From 1991 to 1993 the researchers analyzed data they collected on 2,257 men between the ages of 71 and 93 participating in the Honolulu-Asia Aging Study. The researchers questioned the men on their daily walking activity. The men were then evaluated for dementia in two follow-up exams in 1994 and 1999.
158 cases of dementia were identified during the follow-up examinations. After allowing for age adjustments, the researchers reported men who walked less than a quarter mile per day were nearly twice as likely to develop dementia or Alzheimer's disease compared with men who walked in excess of two miles per day.
"We now have evidence that regular walking is also associated with benefits that are related to cognitive function later in life," said Dr. Robert D. Abbott, co-author of the study.
The researchers noted that the findings from this study of men in Hawaii are likely to apply to women as well.
The study is published in the September 22 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.
<------------------------------------->
Note: Accordingly one could talk also about steps per day which have the advantage of easily being measured with a pedometer. The author of the above article says nothing about a baseline walking distance for seniors. Elsewhere, it has been estimated that seniors in that age bracket average 2500 steps per day. In other studies, a baseline of walking distance or steps has been determined for optimum health benefits.
<------------------------------------->
How Many Steps Per Day?
From Wendy Bumgardner: Your Guide to Walking.
New recommendations from Dr. Catrine Tudor-Locke
How many steps per day are enough? Dr. Catrine Tudor-Locke has been studying pedometer walking and released a new opinion in the January, 2004 issue of "Sports Medicine."
10,000 Steps a Magic Number?
A goal of 10,000 steps per day has become common, based on promotion in Japan by pedometer companies and its adoption by walking clubs. But there was no body of research to back up that number. Numbers as low as 6000 steps a day were shown to be correlated with a lower death rate in men in the Harvard Study.
Many people view 10,000 steps a day as too few for children, yet not achievable by many who are aged, sedentary, or who have chronic diseases. Some suggest instead of using a blanket 10,000 steps per day that instead the goal be based on the individual's baseline plus an increment of steps. For example, a woman who wears a pedometer in her ordinary activities notes that she logs 4000 steps per day. Her goal should be to add the equivalent of a half hour of walking to her day, for example 2000-3000 more steps per day.
New Goals
Based on the best evidence as of the end of 2003, Dr. Catrine Tudor-Locke recommends the following:
Classification of pedometer-determined physical activity in healthy adults:
1) Under 5000 steps/day may be used as a "sedentary lifestyle index"
2) 5,000-7,499 steps/day is typical of daily activity excluding sports/exercise and might be considered "low active."
3) 7,500-9,999 likely includes some exercise or walking (and/or a job that requires more walking) and might be considered "somewhat active."
4) 10,000 steps/day indicates the point that should be used to classify individuals as "active".
5) Individuals who take more than 12,500 steps/day are likely to be classified as "highly active".
Note: So applying the Journal of American Medical Association data to the pedometer/steps format, a 10,000 step program which is roughly equivalent to walking five miles, is two and a half times more time/distance than was shown effective in the dementia study. With an average stride of 31 inches, and a pace of from two to six miles per hour, a suitable walking exercise program which has been shown to be effective in weight control, dementia risk reduction, and overall health risk abatement is easily worked into an hourly exercise program.
Wrong about WMD, wrong about Al Qaeda, wrong about reconstruction, wrong about unilateralism, wrong about tax cuts, wrong about church-state separation, wrong about prescription drug policies, wrong about global warming threat, wrong about unhindered scientific enquiry, wrong about...just wrong period !
Transcript of Sen. Kerry's NYU Speech: Sept. 20th, 2004
"I am honored to be here at New York University—one of the great urban universities, not just in New York, but in the world. You have set a high standard for global dialogue and I hope to live up to that tradition today.This election is about choices. The most important choices a President makes are about protecting America...at home and around the world. A president's first obligation is to make America safer, stronger and truer to our ideals.
Only a few blocks from here, three years ago, the events of September 11 reminded every American of that obligation. That day brought to our shores the defining struggle of our times: the struggle between freedom and radical fundamentalism. And it made clear that our most important task is to fight...and to win...the war on terrorism.
With us today is a remarkable group of women who lost loved ones on September 11th...and whose support I am honored to have. Not only did they suffer an unbearable loss—they helped us learn the lessons of that terrible time by insisting on the creation of the 9/11 Commission. I ask them to stand. And I thank them on behalf of our country—and I pledge to them and to you that I will implement the 9-11 recommendations.
In fighting the war on terrorism, my principles are straight forward. The terrorists are beyond reason. We must destroy them. As president, I will do whatever it takes, as long as it takes, to defeat our enemies. But billions of people around the world yearning for a better life are open to America's ideals. We must reach them.
To win, America must be strong. And America must be smart. The greatest threat we face is the possibility Al Qaeda or other terrorists will get their hands on a nuclear weapon.
To prevent that from happening, we must call on the totality of America's strength. Strong alliances, to help us stop the world's most lethal weapons from falling into the most dangerous hands. A powerful military, transformed to meet the new threats of terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction. And all of America's power—our diplomacy, our intelligence system, our economic power, the appeal of our values—each of which is critical to making America more secure and preventing a new generation of terrorists from emerging.
National security is a central issue in this campaign. We owe it to the American people to have a real debate about the choices President Bush has made and the choices I would make...to fight and win the war on terror.
That means we must have a great honest national debate on Iraq. The President claims it is the centerpiece of his war on terror. In fact, Iraq was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden and the terrorists. Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight.
This month, we passed a cruel milestone: more than 1,000 Americans lost in Iraq. Their sacrifice reminds us that Iraq remains, overwhelmingly, an American burden. Nearly 90 percent of the troops—and nearly 90 percent of the casualties—are American. Despite the President's claims, this is not a grand coalition.
Our troops have served with extraordinary bravery, skill and resolve. Their service humbles all of us. When I speak to them...when I look into the eyes of their families, I know this: we owe them the truth about what we have asked them to do...and what is still to be done.
In June, the President declared, "The Iraqi people have their country back." Just last week, he told us: "This country is headed toward democracy...Freedom is on the march."
But the administration's own official intelligence estimate, given to the President last July, tells a very different story.
According to press reports, the intelligence estimate totally contradicts what the President is saying to the American people.
So do the facts on the ground.
Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis.
42 Americans died in Iraq in June—the month before the handover. But 54 died in July…66 in August...and already 54 halfway through September.
And more than 1,100 Americans were wounded in August—more than in any other month since the invasion.
We are fighting a growing insurgency in an ever widening war-zone. In March, insurgents attacked our forces 700 times. In August, they attacked 2,700 times—a 400% increase.
Falluja…Ramadi...Samarra...even parts of Baghdad—are now "no go zones"...breeding grounds for terrorists who are free to plot and launch attacks against our soldiers. The radical Shi'a cleric, Moktada al-Sadr, who's accused of complicity in the murder of Americans, holds more sway in the suburbs of Baghdad.
Violence against Iraqis...from bombings to kidnappings to intimidation...is on the rise.
Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
Residents of Baghdad are suffering electricity blackouts lasting up to 14 hours a day.
Raw sewage fills the streets, rising above the hubcaps of our Humvees. Children wade through garbage on their way to school.
Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys.
Yes, there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq. Schools, shops and hospitals have been opened. In parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails.
But most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence...instead of siding with us against the insurgents.
That is the truth. The truth that the Commander in Chief owes to our troops and the American people.
It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again.
I know this dilemma first-hand. After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do.
Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, in itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.
The President has said that he "miscalculated" in Iraq and that it was a "catastrophic success." In fact, the President has made a series of catastrophic decisions...from the beginning...in Iraq. At every fork in the road, he has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction.
The first and most fundamental mistake was the President's failure to tell the truth to the American people.
He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war. And he failed to tell the truth about the burden this war would impose on our soldiers and our citizens.
By one count, the President offered 23 different rationales for this war. If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.
His two main rationales—weapons of mass destruction and the Al Qaeda/September 11 connection—have been proved false...by the President's own weapons inspectors...and by the 9/11 Commission. Just last week, Secretary of State Powell acknowledged the facts. Only Vice President Cheney still insists that the earth is flat.
The President also failed to level with the American people about what it would take to prevail in Iraq.
He didn't tell us that well over 100,000 troops would be needed, for years, not months. He didn't tell us that he wouldn't take the time to assemble a broad and strong coalition of allies. He didn't tell us that the cost would exceed $200 billion. He didn't tell us that even after paying such a heavy price, success was far from assured.
And America will pay an even heavier price for the President's lack of candor.
At home, the American people are less likely to trust this administration if it needs to summon their support to meet real and pressing threats to our security.
Abroad, other countries will be reluctant to follow America when we seek to rally them against a common menace—as they are today. Our credibility in the world has plummeted.
In the dark days of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy sent former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to Europe to build support. Acheson explained the situation to French President de Gaulle. Then he offered to show him highly classified satellite photos, as proof. De Gaulle waved the photos away, saying: "The word of the President of the United States is good enough for me."
How many world leaders have that same trust in America's president, today?
This President's failure to tell the truth to us before the war has been exceeded by fundamental errors of judgment during and after the war.
The President now admits to "miscalculations" in Iraq.
That is one of the greatest understatements in recent American history. His were not the equivalent of accounting errors. They were colossal failures of judgment—and judgment is what we look for in a president.
This is all the more stunning because we're not talking about 20/20 hindsight. Before the war, before he chose to go to war, bi-partisan Congressional hearings...major outside studies...and even some in the administration itself...predicted virtually every problem we now face in Iraq.
This President was in denial. He hitched his wagon to the ideologues who surround him, filtering out those who disagreed, including leaders of his own party and the uniformed military. The result is a long litany of misjudgments with terrible consequences.
The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong.
They told us not to worry about looting or the sorry state of Iraq's infrastructure. They were wrong.
They told us we had enough troops to provide security and stability, defeat the insurgents, guard the borders and secure the arms depots. They were wrong.
They told us we could rely on exiles like Ahmed Chalabi to build political legitimacy. They were wrong.
They told us we would quickly restore an Iraqi civil service to run the country and a police force and army to secure it. They were wrong.
In Iraq, this administration has consistently over-promised and under-performed. This policy has been plagued by a lack of planning, an absence of candor, arrogance and outright incompetence. And the President has held no one accountable, including himself.
In fact, the only officials who lost their jobs over Iraq were the ones who told the truth.
General Shinseki said it would take several hundred thousand troops to secure Iraq. He was retired. Economic adviser Larry Lindsey said that Iraq would cost as much as $200 billion. He was fired. After the successful entry into Baghdad, George Bush was offered help from the UN—and he rejected it. He even prohibited any nation from participating in reconstruction efforts that wasn't part of the original coalition—pushing reluctant countries even farther away. As we continue to fight this war almost alone, it is hard to estimate how costly that arrogant decision was. Can anyone seriously say this President has handled Iraq in a way that makes us stronger in the war on terrorism?
By any measure, the answer is no. Nuclear dangers have mounted across the globe. The international terrorist club has expanded. Radicalism in the Middle East is on the rise. We have divided our friends and united our enemies. And our standing in the world is at an all time low.
Think about it for a minute. Consider where we were...and where we are. After the events of September 11, we had an opportunity to bring our country and the world together in the struggle against the terrorists. On September 12th, headlines in newspapers abroad declared "we are all Americans now." But through his policy in Iraq, the President squandered that moment and rather than isolating the terrorists, left America isolated from the world.
We now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat to our security. It had not, as the Vice President claimed, "reconstituted nuclear weapons."
The President's policy in Iraq took our attention and resources away from other, more serious threats to America.
Threats like North Korea, which actually has weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear arsenal, and is building more under this President's watch…
...The emerging nuclear danger from Iran...
...The tons and kilotons of unsecured chemical and nuclear weapons in Russia...
...And the increasing instability in Afghanistan.
Today, warlords again control much of that country, the Taliban is regrouping, opium production is at an all time high and the Al Qaeda leadership still plots and plans, not only there but in 60 other nations. Instead of using U.S. forces, we relied on the warlords to capture Osama bin Laden when he was cornered in the mountains. He slipped away. We then diverted our focus and forces from the hunt for those responsible for September 11th in order invade Iraq.
We know Iraq played no part in September 11 and had no operational ties to Al Qaeda.
The President's policy in Iraq precipitated the very problem he said he was trying to prevent. Secretary of State Powell admits that Iraq was not a magnet for international terrorists before the war. Now it is, and they are operating against our troops. Iraq is becoming a sanctuary for a new generation of terrorists who someday could hit the United States.
We know that while Iraq was a source of friction, it was not previously a source of serious disagreement with our allies in Europe and countries in the Muslim world.
The President's policy in Iraq divided our oldest alliance and sent our standing in the Muslim world into free fall. Three years after 9/11, even in many moderate Muslim countries like Jordan, Morocco and Turkey, Osama bin Laden is more popular than the United States of America.
Let me put it plainly: The President's policy in Iraq has not strengthened our national security. It has weakened it.
Two years ago, Congress was right to give the President the authority to use force to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. This President...any President...would have needed the threat of force to act effectively. This President misused that authority.
The power entrusted to the President gave him a strong hand to play in the international community. The idea was simple. We would get the weapons inspectors back in to verify whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And we would convince the world to speak with one voice to Saddam: disarm or be disarmed.
A month before the war, President Bush told the nation: "If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible. We will plan carefully. We will act with the full power of the United States military. We will act with allies at our side and we will prevail." He said that military action wasn't "unavoidable."
Instead, the President rushed to war without letting the weapons inspectors finish their work. He went without a broad and deep coalition of allies. He acted without making sure our troops had enough body armor. And he plunged ahead without understanding or preparing for the consequences of the post-war. None of which I would have done.
Yet today, President Bush tells us that he would do everything all over again, the same way. How can he possibly be serious? Is he really saying that if we knew there were no imminent threat, no weapons of mass destruction, no ties to Al Qaeda, the United States should have invaded Iraq? My answer is no—because a Commander-in-Chief's first responsibility is to make a wise and responsible decision to keep America safe.
Now the president, in looking for a new reason, tries to hang his hat on the "capability" to acquire weapons. But that was not the reason given to the nation; it was not the reason Congress voted on; it's not a reason, it's an excuse. Thirty-five to forty countries have greater capability to build a nuclear bomb than Iraq did in 2003. Is President Bush saying we should invade them?
I would have concentrated our power and resources on defeating global terrorism and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden. I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein—who was weak and getting weaker—so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.
The President's insistence that he would do the same thing all over again in Iraq is a clear warning for the future. And it makes the choice in this election clear: more of the same with President Bush or a new direction that makes our troops and America safer. It is time, at long last, to ask the questions and insist on the answers from the Commander-in-Chief about his serious misjudgments and what they tell us about his administration and the President himself. If George W. Bush is re-elected, he will cling to the same failed policies in Iraq—and he will repeat, somewhere else, the same reckless mistakes that have made America less secure than we can or should be.
In Iraq, we have a mess on our hands. But we cannot throw up our hands. We cannot afford to see Iraq become a permanent source of terror that will endanger America's security for years to come.
All across this country people ask me what we should do now. Every step of the way, from the time I first spoke about this in the Senate, I have set out specific recommendations about how we should and should not proceed. But over and over, when this administration has been presented with a reasonable alternative, they have rejected it and gone their own way. This is stubborn incompetence.
Five months ago, in Fulton, Missouri, I said that the President was close to his last chance to get it right. Every day, this President makes it more difficult to deal with Iraq—harder than it was five months ago, harder than it was a year ago. It is time to recognize what is—and what is not—happening in Iraq today. And we must act with urgency.
Just this weekend, a leading Republican, Chuck Hagel, said we're "in deep trouble in Iraq...it doesn't add up...to a pretty picture [and]...we're going to have to look at a recalibration of our policy." Republican leaders like Dick Lugar and John McCain have offered similar assessments.
We need to turn the page and make a fresh start in Iraq.
First, the President has to get the promised international support so our men and women in uniform don't have to go it alone. It is late; the President must respond by moving this week to gain and regain international support.
Last spring, after too many months of resistance and delay, the President finally went back to the U.N. which passed Resolution 1546. It was the right thing to do—but it was late.
That resolution calls on U.N. members to help in Iraq by providing troops...trainers for Iraq's security forces...a special brigade to protect the U.N. mission...more financial assistance...and real debt relief.
Three months later, not a single country has answered that call. And the president acts as if it doesn't matter.
And of the $13 billion previously pledged to Iraq by other countries, only $1.2 billion has been delivered.
The President should convene a summit meeting of the world's major powers and Iraq's neighbors, this week, in New York, where many leaders will attend the U.N. General Assembly. He should insist that they make good on that U.N. resolution. He should offer potential troop contributors specific, but critical roles, in training Iraqi security personnel and securing Iraq's borders. He should give other countries a stake in Iraq's future by encouraging them to help develop Iraq's oil resources and by letting them bid on contracts instead of locking them out of the reconstruction process.
This will be difficult. I and others have repeatedly recommended this from the very beginning. Delay has made only made it harder. After insulting allies and shredding alliances, this President may not have the trust and confidence to bring others to our side in Iraq. But we cannot hope to succeed unless we rebuild and lead strong alliances so that other nations share the burden with us. That is the only way to succeed.
Second, the President must get serious about training Iraqi security forces.
Last February, Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that more than 210,000 Iraqis were in uniform. Two weeks ago, he admitted that claim was exaggerated by more than 50 percent. Iraq, he said, now has 95,000 trained security forces.
But guess what? Neither number bears any relationship to the truth. For example, just 5,000 Iraqi soldiers have been fully trained, by the administration's own minimal standards. And of the 35,000 police now in uniform, not one has completed a 24-week field-training program. Is it any wonder that Iraqi security forces can't stop the insurgency or provide basic law and order?
The President should urgently expand the security forces training program inside and outside Iraq. He should strengthen the vetting of recruits, double classroom training time, and require follow-on field training. He should recruit thousands of qualified trainers from our allies, especially those who have no troops in Iraq. He should press our NATO allies to open training centers in their countries. And he should stop misleading the American people with phony, inflated numbers.
Third, the President must carry out a reconstruction plan that finally brings tangible benefits to the Iraqi people.
Last week, the administration admitted that its plan was a failure when it asked Congress for permission to radically revise spending priorities in Iraq. It took 17 months for them to understand that security is a priority...17 months to figure out that boosting oil production is critical...17 months to conclude that an Iraqi with a job is less likely to shoot at our soldiers.
One year ago, the administration asked for and received $18 billion to help the Iraqis and relieve the conditions that contribute to the insurgency. Today, less than a $1 billion of those funds have actually been spent. I said at the time that we had to rethink our policies and set standards of accountability. Now we're paying the price.
Now, the President should look at the whole reconstruction package…draw up a list of high visibility, quick impact projects...and cut through the red tape. He should use more Iraqi contractors and workers, instead of big corporations like Halliburton. He should stop paying companies under investigation for fraud or corruption. And he should fire the civilians in the Pentagon responsible for mismanaging the reconstruction effort.
Fourth, the President must take immediate, urgent, essential steps to guarantee the promised elections can be held next year.
Credible elections are key to producing an Iraqi government that enjoys the support of the Iraqi people and an assembly to write a Constitution that yields a viable power sharing arrangement.
Because Iraqis have no experience holding free and fair elections, the President agreed six months ago that the U.N. must play a central role. Yet today, just four months before Iraqis are supposed to go to the polls, the U.N. Secretary General and administration officials themselves say the elections are in grave doubt. Because the security situation is so bad...and because not a single country has offered troops to protect the U.N. elections mission...the U.N. has less than 25 percent of the staff it needs in Iraq to get the job done.
The President should recruit troops from our friends and allies for a U.N. protection force. This won't be easy. But even countries that refused to put boots on the ground in Iraq should still help protect the U.N. We should also intensify the training of Iraqis to manage and guard the polling places that need to be opened. Otherwise, U.S forces would end up bearing those burdens alone.
If the President would move in this direction...if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and forces ...train the Iraqis to provide their own security...develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people...and take the steps necessary to hold credible elections next year...we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring all our troops home within the next four years.
This is what has to be done. This is what I would do as President today. But we cannot afford to wait until January. President Bush owes it to the American people to tell the truth and put Iraq on the right track. Even more, he owes it to our troops and their families, whose sacrifice is a testament to the best of America.
The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: We must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden. We must effectively train Iraqis, because they should be responsible for their own security. We must move forward with reconstruction, because that's essential to stop the spread of terror. And we must help Iraqis achieve a viable government, because it's up to them to run their own country. That's the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.
On May 1 of last year, President Bush stood in front of a now infamous banner that read "Mission Accomplished." He declared to the American people: "In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." In fact, the worst part of the war was just beginning, with the greatest number of American casualties still to come. The president misled, miscalculated, and mismanaged every aspect of this undertaking and he has made the achievement of our objective—a stable Iraq, secure within its borders, with a representative government, harder to achieve.
In Iraq, this administration's record is filled with bad predictions, inaccurate cost estimates, deceptive statements and errors of judgment of historic proportions.
At every critical juncture in Iraq, and in the war on terrorism, the President has made the wrong choice. I have a plan to make America stronger.
The President often says that in a post 9-11 world, we can't hesitate to act. I agree. But we should not act just for the sake of acting. I believe we have to act wisely and responsibly.
George Bush has no strategy for Iraq. I do.
George Bush has not told the truth to the American people about why we went to war and how the war is going. I have and I will continue to do so.
I believe the invasion of Iraq has made us less secure and weaker in the war against terrorism. I have a plan to fight a smarter, more effective war on terror—and make us safer.
Today, because of George Bush's policy in Iraq, the world is a more dangerous place for America and Americans.
If you share my conviction that we can not go on as we are...that we can make America stronger and safer than it is...then November 2 is your chance to speak...and to be heard. It is not a question of staying the course, but of changing the course.
I'm convinced that with the right leadership, we can create a fresh start and move more effectively to accomplish our goals. Our troops have served with extraordinary courage and commitment. For their sake, and America's sake, we must get this right. We must do everything in our power to complete the mission and make America stronger at home and respected again in the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America."
CIA Nominee Porter Goss:
Admits Bush Administration Over-Sold Threat vs Actual Intel
Nominee Says Iraq Threat Was Perhaps OverstatedBy DOUGLAS JEHL
NY Times
Published: September 21, 2004
WASHINGTON, Sept. 20 - Representative Porter J. Goss, the nominee to become director of central intelligence, said on Monday that some prewar statements by senior Bush administration officials might well have overstated available intelligence about the threat posed by Iraq.
Under sharp questioning from a Senate Democrat, Mr. Goss, a Republican from Florida, said he agreed that statements by Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice that linked Iraq to the Sept. 11 attacks; to Al Qaeda; and to an active nuclear weapons program appeared to have gone beyond what was spelled out in intelligence reports at the time.
Mr. Goss's concession could fuel Democratic criticisms that Mr. Bush and his advisers overstated the threat posed by Iraq before the war. Democrats failed this year to persuade Republicans to include conclusions related to the administration's use of intelligence in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq that was completed in July.
Mr. Goss, who headed the House Intelligence Committee, said he did not believe that anyone in the administration had "deliberately mischaracterized or misused intelligence'' preceding the war on Iraq.
But he said that if confirmed as intelligence chief, he would feel an obligation to correct misstatements or misinformation, though he said he might not do so publicly.
"If I were confronted with that kind of a hypothetical, where I felt that a policy maker was getting beyond what the intelligence said, I think I would advise the person involved,'' Mr. Goss said in response to a question from Senator Carl M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan. "I do believe that would be a case that would put me into action, if I were confirmed. Yes, sir.''
Each example on which Mr. Goss commented was raised by Senator Levin. They included a December 2001 statement in which Mr. Cheney said that a meeting in Prague between a Sept. 11 hijacker, Mohammed Atta, and an Iraqi official had been "pretty well-confirmed'' and a separate statement by Ms. Rice in September 2002 saying, first, that aluminum tubes being imported by Iraq "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs'' and, second, that "we know'' that Iraq provided some training to Al Qaeda in chemical weapons development.
All three of those assertions have since been discredited, and recent reports by the independent Sept. 11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee suggested that all three exceeded the intelligence available at the time.
In each case, Mr. Goss cautioned that he did not know what information Mr. Cheney and Ms. Rice had used as the basis for their statements. He said he still believed that Iraq had provided some unspecified training to Al Qaeda, though he declined to elaborate.
But he said of Mr. Cheney's public assertion on Dec. 9, 2001, about Mr. Atta and the meeting with an Iraqi official in Prague, for example: "I don't think it was as well confirmed perhaps as the vice president thought. But I don't know what was in the vice president's mind, and I've certainly never talked with him about this. So I don't know how he came to that conclusion.''
Mr. Goss said that Ms. Rice's Sept. 8, 2002, statement about the aluminum tubes appeared to have been "an exaggeration,'' compared with the findings spelled out in a national intelligence estimate at the same time. He said Ms. Rice's Sept. 25, 2002, statement linking Iraq to training for Al Qaeda, if it were based solely on the evidence that has been made public to date, would have been in a category in which "I would feel obliged to ask the national security adviser what in fact was the basis for that statement.''
Earlier this year, George J. Tenet, then still director of central intelligence, told Congress that he had corrected Bush administration officials, including Mr. Cheney, about several statements, including those linking Mr. Atta to a meeting in Prague.
Mr. Goss, who has spent nearly 16 years in Congress, steered clear of any overt criticism of Mr. Bush or his senior aides. At the same time, he seemed determined to reassure Democrats that he would put partisan politics behind him if confirmed, and he vowed to be an objective, independent and nonpartisan intelligence chief.
The Senate panel set a vote on Mr. Goss's nomination for Tuesday morning. Of the seven Democrats on the panel, only Mr. Levin; John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the vice chairman; and Ron Wyden of Oregon, attended Monday's session; four of the committee's eight Republicans attended.
That alone suggested that Mr. Goss's nomination was facing little real opposition. Congressional officials from both parties said they expected that Mr. Goss would win an overwhelming majority from the panel, clearing the way for him to win confirmation from the full Senate, possibly as soon as this week. The Senate's Republican leaders have not yet announced the schedule for a debate on the Senate floor.
Monday's hearing, running less than two hours, was less confrontational than a four-and-a-half-hour session last Tuesday. But efforts by Democrats to portray Mr. Goss as a partisan drew protests from Republicans, including Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee chairman, who accused Democrats of dwelling on the issue for their own partisan purposes.
Iraq War: Yes, or No?
Finally, Kerry Takes a StandNY Times Op-Ed
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: September 21, 2004
Yesterday John Kerry came to New York University and did something amazing. He uttered a series of clear, declarative sentences on the subject of Iraq. Many of these sentences directly contradict his past statements on Iraq, but at least you could figure out what he was trying to say.
First, Kerry argued that Iraq was never a serious threat to the United States, that the war was never justified and that Bush's focus on Iraq was a "profound diversion" from the real enemy, Osama bin Laden.
Second, Kerry argued that we are losing the war in Iraq. Casualties are mounting, the insurgency is spreading, and daily life is more miserable.
Third, Kerry argued that in times like this, brave leaders should tell the truth to the American people. Kerry reminded his audience that during Vietnam, he returned home "to offer my own personal voice of dissent," and he's decided to do the same thing now. The parallel is clear: Iraq is the new Vietnam.
Finally, Kerry declared that it is time to get out, beginning next summer. The message is that if Kerry is elected, the entire momentum of U.S. policy will be toward getting American troops out of Iraq as quickly as possible and shifting responsibility for Iraq onto other countries.
The crucial passage in the speech was this one: "The principles that should guide American policy in Iraq now and in the future are clear: we must make Iraq the world's responsibility, because the world has a stake in the outcome and others should share the burden." From a U.S. responsibility, Iraq will become the world's responsibility.
Kerry said the United Nations must play a central role in supervising elections. He said other nations should come in to protect U.N. officials. He called for an international summit meeting this week in New York, where other nations could commit troops and money to Iraq. He said NATO should open training centers for new Iraqi soldiers.
He talked about what other nations could do to help address the situation in Iraq. He did not say what the U.S. should do to defeat the insurgents and stabilize and rebuild Iraq, beyond what Bush is already doing. He did not say the U.S. could fight the insurgents more effectively. He did not have any ideas on how to tame Falluja or handle Moktada al-Sadr. He did not offer any strategy for victory.
But he did, more than at any time in the past year, stake out a clear contrast with Bush.
The president's case is that the world is safer with Saddam out of power, and that we should stay as long as it takes to help Iraqis move to democracy. Kerry's case is that the world would be safer if we'd left Saddam; his emphasis is on untangling the United States from Iraq and shifting attention to more serious threats.
Rhetorically, this was his best foreign policy speech by far (it helps to pick a side). Politically, it was risky. Kerry's new liberal tilt makes him more forceful on the stump, but opens huge vulnerabilities. Does he really want to imply that 1,000 troops died for nothing?
By picking the withdrawal camp, he has assigned himself a clear task. Right now 54 percent of likely voters believe that the U.S. should stay as long as it takes to rebuild Iraq, while 39 percent believe that we should leave as soon as possible. Between now and Nov. 2, Kerry must flip those numbers.
Substantively, of course, Kerry's speech is completely irresponsible. In the first place, there is a 99 percent chance that other nations will not contribute enough troops to significantly decrease the U.S. burden in Iraq. In that case, John Kerry has no Iraq policy. The promise to bring some troops home by summer will be exposed as a Disneyesque fantasy.
More to the point, Kerry is trying to use multilateralism as a gloss for retreat. If "the world" is going to be responsible for defeating Moktada al-Sadr and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, then no one will be responsible for defeating them. The consequences for the people of Iraq and the region will be horrific.
Finally, if the whole war is a mistake, shouldn't we stop fighting tomorrow? What do you say to the last man to die for a "profound diversion"?
But that is what the next few weeks are going to be about. This country has long needed to have a straight up-or-down debate on the war. Now that Kerry has positioned himself as the antiwar candidate, it can.
The Essential Krugman: The Last Deception
Ny Times OP-ED"The Last Deception"
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 21, 2004
It's Ayad Allawi week. President Bush, starting with his address at the U.N. today, will try to present Mr. Allawi - a former Baathist who the BBC reports was chosen as prime minister because he was "equally mistrusted by everyone" - as the leader of a sovereign nation on the path to democracy. If the media play along, Mr. Bush may be able to keep the Iraq disaster under wraps for a few more weeks.
It may well work. In June, when the United States formally transferred sovereignty to Mr. Allawi's government, the media acted as if this empty gesture marked the end of the war. Even though American casualties continued to rise, stories about Iraq dropped off the evening news and the front pages. This gave the public the impression that things were improving and helped Mr. Bush recover in the polls.
Now Mr. Bush hopes that by pretending that Mr. Allawi is a real leader of a real government, he can conceal the fact that he has led America into a major strategic defeat.
That's a stark statement, but it's a view shared by almost all independent military and intelligence experts. Put it this way: it's hard to identify any major urban areas outside Kurdistan where the U.S. and its allies exercise effective control. Insurgents operate freely, even in the heart of Baghdad, while coalition forces, however many battles they win, rule only whatever ground they happen to stand on. And efforts to put an Iraqi face on the occupation are self-defeating: as the example of Mr. Allawi shows, any leader who is too closely associated with America becomes tainted in the eyes of the Iraqi public.
Mr. Bush's insistence that he is nonetheless "pleased with the progress" in Iraq - when his own National Intelligence Estimate echoes the grim views of independent experts - would be funny if the reality weren't so grim. Unfortunately, this is no joke: to the delight of Al Qaeda, America's overstretched armed forces are gradually getting chewed up in a losing struggle.
So what's the answer?
The Bush administration fostered the Iraq insurgency by botching the essential tasks of enlisting allies, rebuilding infrastructure, training and equipping local security forces, and preparing for elections. It's understandable, then, that John Kerry - whose speech yesterday was deadly accurate in its description of Mr. Bush's mistakes - proposes going back and doing the job right.
But I hope that Mr. Kerry won't allow himself to be trapped into trying to fulfill neocon fantasies. If there ever was a chance to turn Iraq into a pro-American beacon of democracy, that chance perished a long time ago.
Can the insurgency be crushed? It's widely believed that in November, a few days after the election, the Bush administration will launch an all-out offensive against insurgent-controlled areas. Such an offensive will, for all practical purposes, be an attempt to conquer Iraq all over again. But unlike Saddam's hapless commanders, the insurgents won't oblige us by taking up positions in the countryside, where they can be blasted by U.S. air power. And grinding urban warfare that leads to heavy American casualties and the death of large numbers of innocent civilians will simply enlarge the ranks of our enemies.
But if the chance to install a pro-American government has been lost, what's the alternative? Scaling back our aims. This means accepting the fact that an Iraqi leader, to have legitimacy, must be able to deliver an end to America's military presence. Unless we want this war to go on forever, we will have to abandon the 14 "enduring bases" the Bush administration has been building.
It also means accepting the likelihood that Iraq will not have a strong central government - and that local leaders will end up with a lot of autonomy. This doesn't have to mean creating havens for hostile forces: remember that for a year after Saddam's fall, moderate Shiite clerics effectively governed large areas of Iraq and kept them relatively peaceful. It was the continuing irritant of the U.S. occupation that empowered radicals like Moktada al-Sadr.
The point is that by winding down America's military presence, while promising aid to those who don't harbor anti-American terrorists and retaliation against those who do, the U.S. can probably leave behind an Iraq that isn't an American ally, but isn't a threat either. And that, at this point, is probably the best we can hope for.
New Shame for the Bush Adminstration Unilateralists
US refuses to back world hunger battleThe Scotsman Evening News
Sept. 21, 2004
The United States faced condemnation today after failing to join more than 100 countries as part of a new campaign to raise an extra $50 billion (£28bn) annually in aid to combat global hunger.
On the eve of the annual gathering of the General Assembly, more than 50 heads of state and government joined a debate at the United Nations that focused on the impact of globalisation and on ways to finance the war against poverty. French President Jacques Chirac called the pledge to take action "unprecedented".
The declaration also urged governments to seriously consider a report prepared for the conference, setting out a series of options for raising money. These included a global tax on financial transactions, a tax on the sale of heavy arms, an international borrowing facility and a scheme for marketing credit cards whose users would donate a small percentage of their charges to the cause.
"The greatest scandal is not that hunger exists but that it persists even when we have the means to eliminate it. It is time to take action," said a declaration signed by 110 nations and adopted at the close of a World Leaders Summit on Hunger held at UN headquarters.
But the US poured cold water on the project, with the leader of the American delegation, agriculture secretary Ann Veneman, dismissing it. "Economic growth is the long-term solution to hunger and poverty," she told the meeting. "Global taxes are inherently undemocratic. Implementation is impossible."
Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva criticised the US for failing to endorse the pledge.
"How many more times will it be necessary to repeat that the most destructive weapon of mass destruction in the world today is poverty?" said Mr Lula. "We must harness globalisation. We must turn it into a positive force."
Mr Chirac predicted the US position could change after the November 2 elections.
"Let’s see when things settle down what their position will be," the French leader said. "However strong the Americans may be, you cannot in the long run emerge victorious by opposing an idea that is backed by 100 countries, creating a new political situation."
