There are only 7 days to go until the national
referendum on the COMPETENCE, CREDIBILITY and
CHARACTER of the _resident and the VICE _resident.
There is an Electoral Uprising coming...The Bush
abomination allowed 250 tons of explosives, which the
UN had warned it about, disappear a year and a half
ago. The explosives are being used by Zarqawi to kill
US soldiers. The Bush abomination had a golden
opportunity, presented to it by the CIA, to tkae out
Zarqawi and his operation PRIOR to going into Iraq,
but they nixed it because of domestic politics in the
ramp up to their foolish military adventure. The
Emperor has no uniform. The botched, bungled,
mis-named "war on terrorism" is not the strength of
the Bush White House, it is the SHAME of the Bush
White House...According to the Hotline, a Beltwayistan
insider newsletter, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong
Delta) has re-taken the lead in Electoral College
votes. Even AnythingButSee (ABC) has been backed into
the corner of conceding the lead to JFK allbeit within
the "margin of error" in their skewed to the
white/right Corporatist poll data...Do NOT indulge in
hand-wringing about "election day chaos" or
"post-election chaos." There are far too many
propapunditgandists, besotted anchors and craven
political correspondnets suddenly concerned about it
in the US regimestream news media. Wishful thinking?
There is an Electoral Uprising coming...Yes, there
will be disputes that result in law suits and court
decisions down the road. BUT the victory is going to
be significant enough that none of them will be
reasonably perceived to alter the outcome...LEAN INTO
THE FIRE...Seize the day...If enough of us vote they
cannot steal it...Nevada, New Hampshire, West
Virginia, Virginia, Arkansas, Ohio and even Fraudia
itself are either lost or slipping out of their
grasp...These red states are now red, white and blue
states...Electronic voting is not pervasive enough,
the deep fix in the Corporatist media is not
persuasive enough...It is finished...Prepare to stomp
on Nov 2...LEAN INTO THE FIRE...Please read these
FOUR important pieces. Please vote and enourage
others to vote. Please remember that the US
regimestream news media does not want to inform you
about this election, it wants to DISinform you. It has
been, for four years, a full partner in a Triad of
shared special interest (e.g., energy, weapons, media,
pharmaceuticals, chemicals, tobacco, etc.) with the
Bush Cabal and its
wholly-owned-subsidiary-formerly-known-as-the-Republican-Party...REMEMBER
DUVAL COUNTY!
David Thalheimer, www.truthout.org: I have been a
registered Republican since I first became eligible to
vote. I've been an Air Force officer for 20 years,
first on active duty and now in the reserves. I gladly
voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and supported his
battle to win the Cold War. If called to serve in
Iraq, I would willingly do my duty for my country. You
might think I'm a slam-dunk for the Republican ticket
this year, but you'd be wrong. I backed John McCain in
the 2000 primary, but I did not vote for George W.
Bush and I'm even more opposed to him after seeing his
performance over the past four years. I can't say I'm
a big fan of John Kerry, but he's a smart guy and I'm
willing to give him a chance because Bush has done
such a bad job and shows so few signs of improvement
that he doesn't deserve to get reelected. This letter
explains why I'm voting against my Commander in Chief.
President Bush would have you believe that he is
making hard decisions and doing what needs to be done
to win the Global War on Terrorism. While I have no
doubt that he is trying, his actions have shown me
that his judgment is poor and he and his advisers
aren't smart enough to figure out the right way to win
this war. Taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban in
Afghanistan was a no-brainer, but the invasion of Iraq
was a huge diversion of resources away from the real
sources of terrorism. Showing the world that we can
and will "take out" any country we want may make puny
countries like Libya quiver, but it isn't a smart way
to beat the terrorists or our real enemies - it plays
right into their hands...
American troops are doing the best they can to win
in Iraq, but the decision to go to war and the lack of
planning to win the peace were strategic political
mistakes made by President Bush, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, and the senior White House staff. The
rhetoric coming out of the White House about what is
happening in Iraq not only continues to mislead our
citizens, but it has misled our own troops. It has
caused them to misjudge their enemies and make fatal
mistakes in dealing with the Iraqi population. Senior
White House decisions also sent the message to our
troops that they could get around the Geneva
Convention when interrogating suspected terrorists -
with disastrous results for the detainees at Abu
Gharib prison.
President Bush says he has fully supported his
troops, but he is really taking credit for good
Congressional support and ignoring his own poor
record. He has repeatedly submitted defense budgets
cutting active, reserve, guard and veterans' benefits,
including imminent danger pay, family separation
allowance, and the funding of VA hospitals, only to
have them protected by Congress. Attempting to pay for
tax cuts by cutting military benefits during wartime
is outrageous and damaging to our military families...
The bottom line is this. President Bush had four
years to show us what he can do. He has completely
bungled our foreign policy and has been favoring big
business interests and wealthy individuals over fiscal
responsibility, the well being of our economy, and the
health of our citizens. There is no way he's getting
another chance if I have anything to say about it.
Sir, you are relieved of duty!
Shawn Moynihan, Editors & Publishers: Discussions at
the Cleveland Plain Dealer to resolve an impasse
between the paper's editorial board and its publisher
about who to endorse for president have ended with a
Tuesday morning editorial announcing the paper would
back neither Bush nor Kerry...
The paper's editorial board, as E&P first revealed,
decided last week that it wanted to endorse Sen. John
Kerry, but Publisher Alex Machaskee, who has final
say, prefers President George W. Bush. The paper
backed Bush in 2000.
Indeed, this morning's editorial confirms, "A majority
of the editorial board favored Kerry, but after long
and difficult deliberations, it was decided that the
better path would be to sit this one out." It does not
mention Machaskee's role in this.
Agence France Press: Britain's respected Financial
Times endorsed John Kerry as the best choice for US
president, saying incumbent George W. Bush had
polarized the world with his radical foreign policy
and led a reckless economic policy.
The paper, one of the world's leading financial
dailies, called Bush "a polarizer, exploiting the war
on terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the
world into Them and Us."
"Over the past three years, the gap between ambition
and reality has created what could be termed a 'Bush
bubble'," it said.
During that time since te September 11 2001 attacks in
the United States, Bush's "radical, faith-based
politics" and his inability to recognize his mistakes
had led to a disastrous occupation in Iraq and taken
the wrong tack in the war on terrorism, it charged.
"Mr. Bush's flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit
mistakes and to adjust personnel and policy. Blind
faith in military power as a tool for change has too
often influenced decision-making," it said.
"The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism
but Mr. Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the
rest of the world, and a large constituency at home
already fearful of the religious right."
Paul Krugman, NY Times: Aides to John Kerry say that
if he wins, he'll replace Porter Goss as head of the
C.I.A. Let's hope so: Mr. Goss has already confirmed
the fears of those who worried about his appointment
by placing Republican staff members from Capitol Hill
in key positions and raising fears about a partisan
purge.
But the flap over Mr. Goss is only a symptom of a much
broader issue: whether the Bush administration will be
able to maintain its culture of cover-ups. That
culture affects every branch of policy, but it's
strongest when it comes to the "war on terror."
Although President Bush's campaign is based almost
entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that
war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy
over any information that might let voters assess his
performance.
Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was
The Times's report about what the International Atomic
Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza
in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings,
administration officials failed to secure the weapons
site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly
high explosives to be looted, presumably by
insurgents...
The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed
another report that Bush officials tried to suppress -
this one about how the Bush administration let Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in yesterday's
Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an "NBC
Nightly News" report from March that asserted that
before the Iraq war, administration officials called
off a planned attack that might have killed Mr.
Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the
mayhem in that country, in his camp.
Citing "military officials," the original NBC report
explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was
based on domestic politics: "the administration feared
destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of
Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could
undermine its case for war against Saddam." What other
mistakes did the administration make? If partisan
appointees like Mr. Goss continue to control the
intelligence agencies, we may never know.
This isn't speculation: Mr. Goss is already involved
in a new cover-up. Last week Robert Scheer of The Los
Angeles Times revealed the existence of a devastating
but suppressed report by the C.I.A.'s inspector
general on 9/11 intelligence failures. Newsweek has
now confirmed the gist of Mr. Scheer's column.
The report, the magazine says, "identifies a host of
current and former officials who could be candidates
for possible disciplinary procedures." But although
the report was completed in June, Mr. Goss has refused
to release it to Congress. "Everyone feels it will be
better if this hits the fan after the election," an
official told the magazine. Better for whom?
What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week's
election may determine whether we ever find out.
Support Our Troops, Save the US Constitution,
Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Restore Fiscal Responsibility in the White House,
Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Save the Environment, Break the Corporatist
Stranglehold on the US Mainstream News Media, Rescue
the US Supreme Court from Right-Wing Radicals, Cleanse
the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat the Triad, Defeat Bush (again!)
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/102704X.shtml
Why I'm Voting Against My Commander in Chief
By David Thalheimer
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Friday 22 October 2004
I have been a registered Republican since I first
became eligible to vote. I've been an Air Force
officer for 20 years, first on active duty and now in
the reserves. I gladly voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980
and supported his battle to win the Cold War. If
called to serve in Iraq, I would willingly do my duty
for my country. You might think I'm a slam-dunk for
the Republican ticket this year, but you'd be wrong. I
backed John McCain in the 2000 primary, but I did not
vote for George W. Bush and I'm even more opposed to
him after seeing his performance over the past four
years. I can't say I'm a big fan of John Kerry, but
he's a smart guy and I'm willing to give him a chance
because Bush has done such a bad job and shows so few
signs of improvement that he doesn't deserve to get
reelected. This letter explains why I'm voting against
my Commander in Chief.
President Bush would have you believe that he is
making hard decisions and doing what needs to be done
to win the Global War on Terrorism. While I have no
doubt that he is trying, his actions have shown me
that his judgment is poor and he and his advisers
aren't smart enough to figure out the right way to win
this war. Taking out Al Qaida and the Taliban in
Afghanistan was a no-brainer, but the invasion of Iraq
was a huge diversion of resources away from the real
sources of terrorism. Showing the world that we can
and will "take out" any country we want may make puny
countries like Libya quiver, but it isn't a smart way
to beat the terrorists or our real enemies - it plays
right into their hands.
Bush has made no real attempt to win the support of
the large majority of Muslims who oppose terrorism.
Instead, he has created millions of new enemies around
the world - people who used to admire the USA - and
these people are now more likely to be recruited by or
support future terrorists. It is now more likely that
they will overthrow their moderate, pro-US
governments, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia,
and replace them with radical Islamic regimes. Far
more dangerous to America than Iraq are the radicals
trying to take over Pakistan (which already has
nuclear weapons), the unpredictable leader of North
Korea (which also has nukes), and Iran (which is
allegedly working hard to get them). We are less
secure today because we are creating more new enemies
than we are able to kill or capture. There are smarter
ways to track down terrorists and reduce the appeal of
radical Islamic ideology, but Bush has decided to take
the easy but wrong course of flexing America's
conventional military might and intimidating the world
rather than rallying our friends and allies around a
grand strategy that has a chance of success.
American troops are doing the best they can to win
in Iraq, but the decision to go to war and the lack of
planning to win the peace were strategic political
mistakes made by President Bush, Secretary of Defense
Rumsfeld, and the senior White House staff. The
rhetoric coming out of the White House about what is
happening in Iraq not only continues to mislead our
citizens, but it has misled our own troops. It has
caused them to misjudge their enemies and make fatal
mistakes in dealing with the Iraqi population. Senior
White House decisions also sent the message to our
troops that they could get around the Geneva
Convention when interrogating suspected terrorists -
with disastrous results for the detainees at Abu
Gharib prison.
President Bush says he has fully supported his
troops, but he is really taking credit for good
Congressional support and ignoring his own poor
record. He has repeatedly submitted defense budgets
cutting active, reserve, guard and veterans' benefits,
including imminent danger pay, family separation
allowance, and the funding of VA hospitals, only to
have them protected by Congress. Attempting to pay for
tax cuts by cutting military benefits during wartime
is outrageous and damaging to our military families.
While national security is of my most grave concern,
there are other domestic issues that also matter and
can't be allowed to suffer through another four years
of bad policy.
I was recently shocked to learn that President Bush,
despite all his talk about love of freedom, has
attempted to deny our most precious freedom to
American citizens who oppose him - the right to free
speech. On many occasions, he has used the Secret
Service to keep legal, peaceful protesters quarantined
in designated "free speech zones" where nobody
(especially the media) can see or hear them. Pro-Bush
crowds are allowed to get near him during speeches,
but people with signs critical of him have been
forcibly moved away or illegally arrested. I find this
outrageous and intolerable. Some provisions in the
Patriot Act are also dangerous to our liberty in the
hands of an attorney general who is willing to jail
citizens for months or years without any possibility
of judicial review. Many American citizens have been
jailed secretly, and while I am all for giving the FBI
greater powers to investigate suspected terrorists,
there have to be checks and balances to protect us
from over-zealous government officials. Absolute power
corrupts absolutely, and all Americans should be wary
of any President who is willing to violate our most
basic rights.
While I'm not a fan of extreme environmentalists who
want to protect every endangered species around, I do
care about the quality of my air and water and
controls on toxic waste that could endanger all of our
health. I'm willing to pay for healthy living
conditions, and I don't think that such costs threaten
the competitiveness of US companies against low-cost
foreign companies that are allowed to pollute.
President Bush has attempted to reverse environmental
protections across the board and has given big
business interests the ability to profit from the
destruction of our natural resources. He forced the
EPA to stop prosecuting Clean Air Act violators,
attempted to increase the amount of toxic mercury
allowed in our water, under-funded the cleanup of
hazardous waste, reversed EPA bans on the sale of
contaminated land, increased logging in our national
parks, allowed giant pig "factory farms" to pollute
the land, water and homes without having to clean it
up, and ignored the threat of global warming. Yes, it
costs money to have healthy living conditions and some
countries don't want to pay the price. That's when the
President has a duty to lead the world to negotiate
good environmental treaties, not to refuse to
participate, thus guaranteeing failure. He has a duty
to protect American companies against unfair foreign
competition, not give them a license to break the laws
established to protect our own citizens. President
Bush has failed to lead the world and protect our
citizens from environmental hazards or unfair foreign
competition.
President Bush also appears willing to sacrifice our
national parks to the interests of oil companies,
strip miners and loggers. Once these national
treasures have been exploited, they will be ruined
forever. Our parks belong to the people and I'm not
willing to sell them out for a few bucks, most of
which will go to private companies and the rest of
which will go to support more government spending or
tax cuts for the wealthy.
Finally, let me address the economy. I've never
really believed that the President has much short-term
influence over the state of the economy. However, I do
know that cutting taxes and increasing spending is
normally a great way to stimulate economic growth for
a few years, while hurting us in the long-term when we
have to pay off the debt. Yet, despite the billions in
tax cuts and increased homeland security spending, I
haven't seen any growth in jobs or spending. I guess
that means all we get is the long-term debt. Finally -
is President Bush willing to fix Social Security? No -
but then again, I don't think anyone in Washington has
the guts to do it.
The bottom line is this. President Bush had four
years to show us what he can do. He has completely
bungled our foreign policy and has been favoring big
business interests and wealthy individuals over fiscal
responsibility, the well being of our economy, and the
health of our citizens. There is no way he's getting
another chance if I have anything to say about it.
Sir, you are relieved of duty!
-------
Jump to TO Features for Wednesday October 27, 2004
Today's TO Features -------------- FOCUS: John Kerry
| George Bush has Failed Us as Commander in Chief
David Thalheimer | Why I'm Voting Against My Commander
in Chief Some Fear Ohio Will Be Florida of 2004 Howard
Dean: Why I am Voting for John Kerry t r u t h o u t
Home
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this
material is distributed without profit to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation
whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is
t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the
originator.)
Print This Story
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000684430
Cleveland 'Plain Dealer' Decides to Not Decide
By Shawn Moynihan
Published: October 25, 2004 9:00 PM EDT
NEW YORK Discussions at the Cleveland Plain Dealer to
resolve an impasse between the paper's editorial board
and its publisher about who to endorse for president
have ended with a Tuesday morning editorial announcing
the paper would back neither Bush nor Kerry.
"We believe our readers are perfectly capable of
making an informed, rational decision by their own
lights," the editorial concludes, "and we strongly
urge them to do so."
The paper's editorial board, as E&P first revealed,
decided last week that it wanted to endorse Sen. John
Kerry, but Publisher Alex Machaskee, who has final
say, prefers President George W. Bush. The paper
backed Bush in 2000.
Indeed, this morning's editorial confirms, "A majority
of the editorial board favored Kerry, but after long
and difficult deliberations, it was decided that the
better path would be to sit this one out." It does not
mention Machaskee's role in this.
"We believe our readers are perfectly capable of
judging" Bush's conduct as president, the editorial
declared, "and deciding whether Bush's flaws bother
them more than Kerry's ambiguities."
Shirley Steinman, the Plain Dealer's director of
community affairs, insisted Monday that the paper had
not yet chosen a candidate for endorsement and that a
decision would be made "later this week," but the
editorial ran a few hours later.
Since Sunday, the Plain Dealer had been deluged with
e-mails, according to three sources. The e-mails,
noted Brent Larkin, the Plain Dealer's editorial page
editor, came not just from readers, but from all over
the country.
When asked whether public opinion had any bearing on
the paper's decision process in choosing a candidate,
Larkin responded, "Not even a little bit."
In this unusually divisive election, many other
newspaper boards have been split down the middle. Some
have chosen not to endorse at all, while in other
cases the publisher stepped in and cast the only vote
that counted.
Tuesday editorial opened with: "In a year of deep
political divisions, this newspaper's opinion section
is experiencing deep divisions of its own." However,
according to several sources, the editorial board
clearly favored Kerry.
When asked Monday afternoon how negotiations were
going between the editorial board and Machaskee,
Larkin said, "'Negotiations' is not the right word.
We're all in this together."
Regardless of the paper's choice, "It's exciting no
matter what," said Plain Dealer Metro Columnist Regina
Brett, who noted that the Cleveland community is
buzzing about the paper's impending endorsement.
"People in Cleveland are really solid readers of the
paper," she noted.
If Machaskee deflected the Plain Dealer editorial
board's choice, it reportedly won't be the first time:
In the 2002 gubernatorial race, according to Plain
Dealer insiders, Machaskee decided the newspaper would
endorse Bob Taft despite the editorial board's
preference for his opponent, Tim Hagen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Moynihan (smoynihan@editorandpublisher.com) is
managing editor of E&P.
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=31763
Financial Times backs Kerry, bashes 'radical' Bush
AFP: 10/25/2004
LONDON (AFP) - Britain's respected Financial Times
endorsed John Kerry as the best choice for US
president, saying incumbent George W. Bush had
polarized the world with his radical foreign policy
and led a reckless economic policy.
The paper, one of the world's leading financial
dailies, called Bush "a polarizer, exploiting the war
on terror to cow domestic opposition and divide the
world into Them and Us."
"Over the past three years, the gap between ambition
and reality has created what could be termed a 'Bush
bubble'," it said.
During that time since the September 11 2001 attacks
in the United States, Bush's "radical, faith-based
politics" and his inability to recognize his mistakes
had led to a disastrous occupation in Iraq and taken
the wrong tack in the war on terrorism, it charged.
"Mr. Bush's flaw is his stubborn reluctance to admit
mistakes and to adjust personnel and policy. Blind
faith in military power as a tool for change has too
often influenced decision-making," it said.
"The US needs allies in the struggle against terrorism
but Mr. Bush's crusading moralism has alienated the
rest of the world, and a large constituency at home
already fearful of the religious right."
But the paper cautioned that Kerry, the Democratic
senator, "still has much to prove" on domestic policy
and lacks pizazz, but values international alliances
and can recognize his mistakes.
"He owes his rise more to opposition to Mr. Bush than
loyalty to his own cause. But on balance, he is the
better, safer choice," it said.
Moreover, it said, Kerry would return a sound fiscal
policy to Washington, instead of Bush's short-term
economic fix in the form of tax cuts and low federal
interest rates, it went on.
"A President Kerry would probably revert to the fiscal
responsibility of the Clinton years... Coupled with
the need for international economic policy
cooperation... this could be a recipe for success,"
judged the financial daily.
The world's other influential financial pages have not
issued direct endorsements, but the Wall Street
Journal is regularly critical of Kerry. The Economist
weekly issues its endorsement for the November 2 US
vote in its edition out this Friday.
Copyright 2004 Agence France Presse. All rights
reserved. The information contained in the AFP News
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed without the prior written authority of
Agence France Presse.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/26/opinion/26krugman.html?oref=login&oref=login&hp
10/25/2004 - 15:12 GMT - AFP
A Culture of Cover-Ups
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 26, 2004
Aides to John Kerry say that if he wins, he'll replace
Porter Goss as head of the C.I.A. Let's hope so: Mr.
Goss has already confirmed the fears of those who
worried about his appointment by placing Republican
staff members from Capitol Hill in key positions and
raising fears about a partisan purge.
But the flap over Mr. Goss is only a symptom of a much
broader issue: whether the Bush administration will be
able to maintain its culture of cover-ups. That
culture affects every branch of policy, but it's
strongest when it comes to the "war on terror."
Although President Bush's campaign is based almost
entirely on his self-proclaimed leadership in that
war, his officials have thrown a shroud of secrecy
over any information that might let voters assess his
performance.
Yesterday we got two peeks under that shroud. One was
The Times's report about what the International Atomic
Energy Agency calls "the greatest explosives bonanza
in history." Ignoring the agency's warnings,
administration officials failed to secure the weapons
site, Al Qaqaa, in Iraq, allowing 377 tons of deadly
high explosives to be looted, presumably by
insurgents.
The administration is trying to play down the
importance of this loss, arguing that because Iraq was
awash in munitions, a few hundred more tons don't make
much difference. But aside from their potential use in
nuclear weapons - the reason they were under seal
before the war - these particular explosives, unlike
standard munitions, are exactly what a terrorist
needs.
Informed sources quoted by the influential Nelson
Report say explosives from Al Qaqaa are the "primary
source" of the roadside and car bombs that have killed
and wounded so many U.S. soldiers. And thanks to the
huge amount looted - "in a highly organized operation
using heavy equipment" - the insurgents and whoever
else have access to the Qaqaa material have enough
explosives for tens of thousands of future bombs.
If the administration had had its way, the public
would never have heard anything about this.
Administration officials have known about the looting
of Al Qaqaa for at least six months, and probably much
longer. But they didn't let the I.A.E.A. inspect the
site after the war, and pressured the Iraqis not to
inform the agency about the loss. They now say that
they didn't want our enemies - that is, the people who
stole the stuff - to know it was missing. The real
reason, obviously, was that they wanted the news kept
under wraps until after Nov. 2.
The story of the looted explosives has overshadowed
another report that Bush officials tried to suppress -
this one about how the Bush administration let Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi get away. An article in yesterday's
Wall Street Journal confirmed and expanded on an "NBC
Nightly News" report from March that asserted that
before the Iraq war, administration officials called
off a planned attack that might have killed Mr.
Zarqawi, the terrorist now blamed for much of the
mayhem in that country, in his camp.
Citing "military officials," the original NBC report
explained that the failure to go after Mr. Zarqawi was
based on domestic politics: "the administration feared
destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq" - a part of
Iraq not controlled by Saddam Hussein - "could
undermine its case for war against Saddam." The
Journal doesn't comment on this explanation, but it
does say that when NBC reported, correctly, that Mr.
Zarqawi had been targeted before the war,
administration officials denied it.
What other mistakes did the administration make? If
partisan appointees like Mr. Goss continue to control
the intelligence agencies, we may never know.
This isn't speculation: Mr. Goss is already involved
in a new cover-up. Last week Robert Scheer of The Los
Angeles Times revealed the existence of a devastating
but suppressed report by the C.I.A.'s inspector
general on 9/11 intelligence failures. Newsweek has
now confirmed the gist of Mr. Scheer's column.
The report, the magazine says, "identifies a host of
current and former officials who could be candidates
for possible disciplinary procedures." But although
the report was completed in June, Mr. Goss has refused
to release it to Congress. "Everyone feels it will be
better if this hits the fan after the election," an
official told the magazine. Better for whom?
What really happened on 9/11, or in Iraq? Next week's
election may determine whether we ever find out.