I guess this is the GOP’s idea of what ‘public access’ is.

The chief of an Indian tribe represented by the lobbyist Jack Abramoff was admitted to a meeting with President Bush in 2001 days after the tribe paid a prominent conservative lobbying group $25,000 at Mr. Abramoff’s direction, according to documents and interviews. The payment was made to Americans for Tax Reform, a group run by Grover G. Norquist, one of the Republican Party’s most influential policy strategists.

Grover Norquist is in on this scam, as well. No wonder he wants to see government eliminated. Government provides things like investigatory oversight and police services, and those things are threats to him and the racket he and his cohorts seem to be running.

The Washington Monthly was on to this years ago. Read their expose Here

A couple of points come to mind in regards to the economic ties to the Bush Crime Family relative to the Dubai Ports World (DPW) deal. (As some already know, DPW is “state” owned, which is to say that it belongs to the family of the Emir of Dubai, who is an absolute monarch, as George W. Bush apparently imagines himself to be.)

DPW is a major investor in the Carlyle Group, to which the Bush family is intimately connected. Former President Bush sits on their board, is a senior consultant for them, and has been involved in extensive deals with their investors in the past, including the Harken Energy/Arbusto deals. Although there is no direct paper trail, it is widely thought that George W. Bush’s Arbusto got some startup money from Salem Bin Laden, because Bin Laden’s sole U.S. Representative, Houstonian James Bath, invested 50,000 dollars when the company was formed. (George W. Bush says that he started Arbusto with his own money, which is misleading at the very least, because it implies that he got nothing from investors.) Former Senator James A. Baker (R.), a Bush family ally, is a partner in the Carlyle Group. The Carlyle Group also retained former Prime Minister John Major as a senior advisor for its Asian operations; numerous alumni of the Reagan and Bush I administrations have worked for Carlyle, as have the former Presidents of both the Philippines and South Korea.

Most of this information comes from or was confirmed by one of the following Bushwatch pages:

http://www.bushwatch.net/bushmoney.htm
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcarlyle.htm

There is also a Common Dreams reprint of this article from the Portugal News:

The Guardian has also done extensive reporting on this money connection.

- Ed Lacy
USTV Media

Party over nation and Constitution once again.

Seems like every aspiring dictatorial power needs a Republican Guard to pull it off. Bush’s continues to their roles as obedient servants to the boot of power once again. Cenk Uygur hits the nail on the head with this essay…

Pat Roberts has no regard for the truth. His only concern, as a dutiful, obedient member of the Republican Guard, is to protect his political leader. His loyalty to the United States is a distant second to his loyalty to this administration, to his political party and to his dear leader, George W. Bush.

And just today Senator Roberts struck again and said the Intelligence Committee will not investigate the President’s warrantless spying on Americans. Why bother investigating if the President is in clear breach of a federal law?

These are the same Republicans who had the audacity to pretend they cared about the rule of law when Bill Clinton was President. That was when we heard so much about how the law must be enforced, even if it is a matter regarding a private affair. I suppose it shoud come as no surprise that the people who were willing to so grossly violate the President’s privacy (when it was not their President), now have no problems violating your privacy.

Even stalwart conservative pundit George Will believes the administration is in clear violation of the FISA law. Some Republican Senators pretend to agree so that they can appear moderate. But when the vote actually came today, they voted in lock step as the Republican Guard — the party must be protected at all costs.

As if all of this weren’t bad enough, a score of retired senior military officers had to plead with Congress this week to launch an investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib. They think it has done untold damage to our reputation, our honor and to the safety and well-being of our soldiers.

The men asking for this investigation aren’t so-called liberals, they’re not from the United Nations, they’re not French, they’re not from the Red Cross. They are the leaders of the troops that the President pretends to care so much about. Here are their names:

Remember, its not fascism when we do it.

Read the full essay here

Deconstructing Cheney
By James Carroll
The Boston Globe

The indictment of the vice president’s chief of staff for perjury and obstruction of justice is an occasion to consider just how damaging the long public career of Richard Cheney has been to the United States. He began as a political scientist devoted to caring for the elbow of Donald Rumsfeld. As a congressman, Rumsfeld had reliably voted against programs to help the nation’s poor, so (as I recalled in reading James Mann’s ‘’Rise of the Vulcans”) it was with more than usual cynicism that Richard Nixon appointed him head of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the antipoverty agency. Rumsfeld named Cheney as his deputy, and the two set out to gut the program– the beginning of the Republican rollback of the Great Society, what we saw in New Orleans this fall.

When Rumsfeld became Gerald Ford’s White House chief of staff, he again tapped Cheney as his deputy. Now they set out to destroy detente, the fragile new relationship between the United States and the Soviet Union. Dismissing detente as moral relativism, Cheney so believed in Cold War bipolarity that when it began to melt in the late 1980s, he tried to refreeze it. As George H.W. Bush’s secretary of defense, Cheney was key to America’s refusal to accommodate the hopeful new spirit of the age. Violence was in retreat, with peace breaking out across the globe, from the Philippines to South Africa, Ireland, the Middle East, and Central America. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, Cheney forged America’s response — which was, little over a month later, to wage an illegal war against Panama.

As Mikhail Gorbachev presided over the nonviolent dismantling of the Soviet Union, Cheney warned Bush not to trust it. When the justification for the huge military machine over which Cheney presided disappeared, he leapt on the next casus belli — Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. Hussein, a former ally, was now Hitler.

Against Cheney’s own uniformed advisers (notably including Joint Chiefs Chairman Colin Powell), he forged Washington’s choice of violence over diplomacy. The first Gulf War, remembered by Americans as justified, was in fact an unnecessary affirmation of military might as the ground of international order, just as an historic alternative was opening up. US responses in that period, mainly shaped by Cheney, stand in stark contrast to Gorbachev’s, who, refusing to call on military might even to save the Soviet Union, was ordering his soldiers back to their barracks. The unsentimental Cheney, eschewing human rights rhetoric, was explicit in defining America’s Gulf War interest as all about oil. (The oil industry having made Cheney rich.) Cheney’s initiatives, more than any other’s, defined the insult to the Arab world that spawned Al Qaeda.

Read the rest of James Carroll’s piece Here

The long march is right, for this Bushevik. Sidney Blumenthal writes that for Dick Cheney’s entire career, he sought untrammeled power. The Bush presidency and 9/11 finally gave it to him - and he’s not about to give it up. One of America’s most un-American inhabitants.

The hallmark of the Dick Cheney administration is its illegitimacy. Its essential method is bypassing established lines of authority; its goal is the concentration of unaccountable presidential power. When it matters, the regular operations of the CIA, Defense Department and State Department have been sidelined.

Richard Nixon is the model, but with modifications. In the Nixon administration, the president was the prime mover, present at the creation of his own options, attentive to detail, and conscious of their consequences. In the Cheney administration, the president is volatile but passive, firm but malleable, presiding but absent. Once his complicity has been arranged, a closely held “cabal” - as Lawrence Wilkerson, once chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, calls it - wields control.

This is an excellent piece unravelling the history of this figure in American politics. Read the full article here

The Crony Who Prospered
By Mark Benjamin
Salon.com

Joe Allbaugh was George W. Bush’s good ol’ boy in Texas. He hired his good friend Mike Brown to run FEMA. Now Brownie’s gone and Allbaugh is living large.

George W. Bush relied most heavily on three trusted staffers in his bid for the White House in 2000: political strategist Karl Rove, communications czar Karen Hughes and national campaign manager Joe Allbaugh, who had been Bush’s chief of staff in Texas, when Bush was governor. The three were dubbed the “iron triangle” of Bush’s top staff. Allbaugh was “the enforcer,” says Texan Robert Bryce, the author of “Cronies,” about Bush and the oil industry. “And he looked the part: crew-cut, cowboy boots, and just slightly smaller than a side-by-side refrigerator.”
When Bush moved into the Oval Office, Hughes took a job as counselor in a spacious White House corner office with a view of the Truman balcony. Rove moved in as senior advisor. Allbaugh, on the other hand, went down the road to C Street in southwest Washington to take over the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

FEMA?

“Everybody thought [Allbaugh] was going to be White House chief of staff,” Robert Novak said on CNN at the time. “And your initial reaction is, boy, what did he have against Allbaugh? But as I talked to politicians, they say this was a brilliant maneuver because FEMA is very important, politically, to any president dealing with disasters.”

The FEMA director has turned out to have political consequences for the president all right, but not the kind that Bush supporters could have ever envisioned. Critics say Allbaugh hastened the decline of FEMA - even before he turned the agency over to his buddy from Oklahoma, Michael D. Brown, the hapless captain when Katrina struck, whose political career appears to have been shipwrecked for good.

As for the president, a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found that 54 percent of Americans disapprove of his response to Katrina. Allbaugh, meanwhile, has risen above the morass. He and his wife, Diane, now work as Washington lobbyists and consultants for such companies as Halliburton and Northrop Grumman, companies involved in homeland security and disaster relief that do business with the federal government.

When Allbaugh inherited FEMA in February 2001, the relief agency may have been in its best shape since its inception in 1979. It had been in the hands of James Lee Witt for the previous seven years. Witt was an experienced disaster manager who had been the director of the Arkansas Office of Emergency Services for four years before going to FEMA. Witt is credited with implementing sweeping reforms to speed disaster relief, and he was the first FEMA director to get Cabinet-level status - and crucial access - to the president. “Access to the president, I think, is critical in an agency like this,” Witt told reporters over lunch just as he was leaving FEMA.

Bush, however, did not hand the FEMA reins to Allbaugh because of any long experience in emergency services. “Look at Joe Allbaugh’s qualifications,” says Eric Holdeman, director of the King County, Wash., Office of Emergency Management, who last month penned an editorial in the Washington Post, “Destroying FEMA.” “He was campaign manager for Bush. He was a political strategist. He saw FEMA as a federal entitlement program for people. He had no interest in the mission and functions of the emergency management agency.”

However, at FEMA, Allbaugh led federal rescue efforts at Ground Zero with apparently good results, though New York City officials, notably Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, got most of the attention. Allbaugh could also move fast. In February 2001, the Nisqually earthquake in Washington state occurred at 11 a.m. By 11 p.m., Allbaugh was in the Puget Sound area, leading a $157 million response.

Following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, Allbaugh backed plans to fold FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security. “I fully support FEMA’s transfer into the new department and commit myself to ensuring its success,” Allbaugh told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in September 2002. “This is the right action, at the right time, for the good of the country.”

In March 2003, FEMA was folded into DHS. FEMA critic Holdeman explains that the move stripped the FEMA director of Cabinet-level status, buried the agency in red tape, and caused key talent to flee. DHS employees now rate it as one of the worst places to work in the federal government, according to a nonprofit agency’s report, “Best Places to Work in the Federal Government,” released this week. “FEMA first became ill with the appointment of Joe Allbaugh,” Holdeman says. Not only is it on the back burner of DHS priorities, he says, “it is not even on the stove.”

After FEMA’s move to DHS, Allbaugh promptly left the agency. “I have been a longtime advocate for the Department of Homeland Security, and now that it is a reality and the president has a great team in place, I feel I can move on to my next challenge,” he said in a statement. Of course, before he drove off, he appointed the now infamous Brown as team leader, whom he had brought to FEMA in 2001 as general counsel. Appearing before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2002, Brown said: “My friend, Joe Allbaugh, whom I have known for some 25 years, has asked me to serve with him. Our friendship goes back many years.”

Allbaugh graduated from Oklahoma State University in 1975, the same year Brown moved from Southeastern Oklahoma State University to the University of Central Oklahoma. (It has been incorrectly reported that Allbaugh and Brown were college roommates. They did not attend the same college and were never college roommates.) Both were active in Oklahoma municipal or state government. Allbaugh was once the Oklahoma deputy secretary of transportation, and Brown was the staff director of the Oklahoma Senate Finance Committee from 1980 to 1982.

Patti Giglio, Allbaugh’s spokeswoman, says Allbaugh is unavailable for interviews. She says that she is not sure exactly how Allbaugh and Brown met in Oklahoma, but that Allbaugh is “absolutely” responsible for first bringing Brown to FEMA. “He hired him because he was a solid attorney with a strong ethics background,” she says.

Like Allbaugh himself, Brown was no veteran of emergency services. He worked as general counsel for Dillingham Insurance in Enid, Okla., from 1988 to 1991, and evaluated judges for the International Arabian Horse Association for the 10 years ending in 2001.

Brown’s sole piece of emergency experience before FEMA came in the 1970s, working for the city of Edmond, Okla. In the spring of 2002, Brown delivered written biographical materials to a Senate panel considering his nomination to FEMA as a political appointee. In those papers, Brown said he worked as “Assistant City Manger, Police, Fire & Emergency Response,” in Edmond from 1975 to 1978. He signed an affidavit stating that his biographical material and written answers to that Senate panel were “current, accurate and complete.”

However, Edmond city spokeswoman Claudia Deakins says city records list Brown as an “assistant to the city manager” - as opposed to “assistant city manager” - from August 1977 through September 1980. Randel Shadid was on the Edmond City Council from 1979 to 1991 and was mayor from 1991 through 1995. He says he remembers Brown and described the Edmond job as relatively low level. “My best I can recall he was an assistant to the city manager, which basically means he did certain tasks for the city manager,” he says. “He would not have been in charge of the police and fire departments. We had a fire chief and a police chief.”

Shadid says Brown may have assisted the city in preparing a response plan for a tornado or a freight train spill. “He was a nice guy, hard worker and pretty bright,” he says. “But the scope of doing anything in the city of Edmond is nowhere near the scope of trying to handle what’s going on in the gulf.”

Today, with the disgraced Brown having quit FEMA, and President Bush’s post-Katrina poll numbers sinking, Allbaugh continues to prosper. His stint at FEMA has proven to be lucrative for him and his wife Diane, who are lobbyists and consultants for the Allbaugh Co.

A review by Salon of lobbying registration records shows that seven months after Allbaugh left what was to become the Department of Homeland Security, Diane Allbaugh registered as a lobbyist with three companies to work on homeland security or disaster relief issues. Prior to that, she focused almost exclusively on energy companies and electric utility clients.

Records also show that Diane Allbaugh contacted DHS for undisclosed reasons on behalf of two of those clients. She did less than $10,000 of work for each company and all three contracts were terminated in the summer of 2004.

Washington is full of folks in power with spouses who are lobbyists. Allbaugh’s spokeswoman, Giglio, points out that Diane has her own substantial credentials as an attorney and a lobbyist. “Her work is much broader than ‘electric utility lobbyist,’ as you have described it,” Giglio says in an e-mail. “She is an experienced government affairs consultant across many industry sectors.”

Federal ethics law bars senior employees from contacting their former employers on business matters for a period of one year. But not necessarily their spouses. Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, says it is unclear if Diane violated any of a complex web of ethics laws, but there are provisions intended to prevent the use of spouses to skirt restrictions.

It is not the first time Diane’s lobbying could be perceived as cashing in on her husband’s connections. Then-governor Bush in 1996 learned from a report in the Dallas Morning News that Diane had been hired by Texas utility companies who had business before the state. Diane and Joe Allbaugh had moved to Texas from Oklahoma because Joe had become Bush’s executive assistant. The paper said Diane could get $250,000 from the companies, even though she “had no previous experience with Texas legislators.” Diane later dropped the clients to avoid the “perception of a conflict,” she wrote Bush’s general counsel.

This year, the Allbaugh Co. registered to lobby for Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root, Northrop Grumman Corp., and Shaw Group, according to lobbying registration forms. In all three cases, the Allbaughs said they would “educate Congress” on either homeland security or disaster relief issues on the companies’ behalf.

The Washington Post reported last week that Allbaugh was in Baton Rouge, La., helping his clients get business in the wake of Katrina. Allbaugh told the Post that he guides his clients toward “entities” that might need their services but, he said, “I don’t do government contracts.”

Press reports show that Kellogg Brown & Root received a $30 million contract to rebuild Navy bases in Louisiana and Mississippi, and Shaw got a $100 million FEMA contract for housing construction and management. Giglio says Allbaugh had nothing to do with those contracts at all. “He is not in the government contracting business,” she says. “Everybody is trying to connect the dots. They just don’t connect. He did not secure these contracts for either of these companies.”

Watchdog Amey says Allbaugh clearly got the job at FEMA because he was a political operative and he appears to be cashing in on his FEMA post now. “Bush may have stacked the [FEMA] administration with people who may not have been the most qualified, and who then steer business their way afterward. Cronyism gets them into the White House. The revolving door gets them business.”

———————–

Mark Benjamin is a national correspondent for Salon based in Washington, DC.

(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.)

Mike Brown’s Padded Resume
By Paul Campos
The New Republic

September 8th, 2005

By now, the basic contours of Mike Brown’s ascendancy to director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (fema) have come to light. Journalists have uncovered that Brown had almost no relevant experience for the position and got hired by fema because he was a longtime friend of George W. Bush’s close associate Joe Allbaugh. The story being reported, in other words, is that Brown was a lawyer who ended up with a crucial post in the Bush administration because of rank cronyism.
This is a well-known Washington narrative: hotshot lawyer gets appointed to a high government office despite lacking the expertise someone in the position ought to possess. For example, on September 6, The Washington Post fit the Brown scandal into this narrative in a front-page story, saying that Brown has been “caricatured as the failed head of an Arabian horse sporting group who was plucked from obscurity to become President Bush’s point man for the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.”

Yet, far from being a caricature, this description, if anything, understates the absurdity of the situation. The real story of Brown’s meteoric rise from obscurity is far more disturbing, as well as a good deal more farcical. It’s clear that hiring Brown to run fema was an act of gross recklessness, given his utter lack of qualifications for the job. What’s less clear is the answer to the question of exactly what, given Brown’s real biography, he is qualified to do.

To understand the Mike Brown saga, one has to know something about the intricacies of the legal profession, beginning with the status of the law school he attended. Brown’s biography on fema’s website reports that he’s a graduate of the Oklahoma City University School of Law. This is not, to put it charitably, a well-known institution. For example, I’ve been a law professor for the past 15 years and have never heard of it. Of more relevance is the fact that, until 2003, the school was not even a member of the Association of American Law Schools (aals)–the organization that, along with the American Bar Association, accredits the nation’s law schools. Most prospective law students won’t even consider applying to a non-aals law school unless they have no other option, because many employers have a policy of not considering graduates of non-aals institutions. So it’s fair to say that Brown embarked on his prospective legal career from the bottom of the profession’s hierarchy.

So what did Brown, who received his J.D. in 1981, do with his non-aals law degree? In 1985, Brown joined the firm of Long, Ford, Lester & Brown in Enid, Oklahoma. When I spoke to one of its former members, Andrew Lester (the firm no longer exists), he recalled that Brown was with the firm for only “about 18 months.” Lester, who is a longtime friend of Brown, believes that Brown spent most of his time in the first few years after law school pursuing his own legal practice and representing the interests of a prominent local family. Lester vigorously defended his friend’s overall abilities, as well as his qualifications for the fema directorship, pointing out that fema had dealt with more than 100 federal emergencies during Brown’s tenure. In any case, despite the claim of Brown’s fema biography that he practiced law for 20 years prior to his 2001 appointment as fema’s general counsel, it appears that, by 1987, he had already more or less abandoned his nascent legal career. From 1987 to 1990, Brown’s resume includes being the sacrificial lamb for the Oklahoma Republican Party in a 1988 congressional election, in which he won 27 percent of the vote against the incumbent Democrat, and stints as an assistant city manager and city councilman in Edmond, Oklahoma. (According to fema, because of these positions, “Mike Brown has a lot of experience managing people.”) By 1991, he had moved to Colorado, where he became commissioner of judges and stewards for the International Arabian Horse Association (iaha). This position, which never made his fema bio, was Brown’s full-time job from 1991 to 2001, and it had nothing to do with the practice of law.

Brown’s job was to make sure that horse show judges followed the rules, and his enthusiasm for their strict enforcement won him the nickname of “the czar,” as well as the enmity of contestants, some of whom sued the Association, as well as Brown himself. According to a September 6 Denver Post article, Brown became embroiled in controversy when allegations were made that, to help pay his legal fees, Brown solicited a nearly $50,000 contribution from an iaha member whose conduct he was supposed to regulate. Lester, who represented Brown in the iaha’s suits, told me that this was a misunderstanding, due in part to the iaha’s initial unwillingness to fulfill its contractual obligation to cover Brown’s legal costs. “People are focusing on these attacks made against him when he was with the iaha,” Lester says, rather than looking at the work that Brown had actually done at fema. Brown resigned from his position in 2001 under pressure, and the iaha was reorganized as the Arabian Horse Association.

What, then, are we to make of the claim in Brown’s fema biography that, prior to joining the Agency, he had spent most of his professional career practicing law in Colorado? Normally, an attorney practicing law in a state for ten years would have left a record of his experience in public documents. But just about the only evidence of Brown’s Colorado legal career is the Web page he submitted to Findlaw.com, an Internet site for people seeking legal representation. There, he lists himself as a member of the “International Arabian Horse Association Legal Dept.” and claims to be competent to practice law across a dizzying spectrum of specialties–estate planning, family law, employment law for both plaintiffs and defendants, real-estate law, sports law, labor law, and legislative practice. With all this expertise, it’s all the more striking that one can’t find any other evidence of Brown’s legal career in Colorado.

So what legal work did Mike Brown perform before his stunning reversal of fortune? According to his fema biography, “[H]e served as a bar examiner on ethics and professional responsibility for the Oklahoma Supreme Court and as a hearing examiner for the Colorado Supreme Court.” Translation: In Oklahoma, he graded answers to bar exam questions, and, in Colorado, he volunteered to serve on the local attorney disciplinary board.

When Brown left the iaha four years ago, he was, among other things, a failed former lawyer–a man with a 20-year-old degree from a semi-accredited law school who hadn’t attempted to practice law in a serious way in nearly 15 years and who had just been forced out of his job in the wake of charges of impropriety. At this point in his life, returning to his long-abandoned legal career would have been very difficult in the competitive Colorado legal market. Yet, within months of leaving the iaha, he was handed one of the top legal positions in the entire federal government: general counsel for a major federal agency. A year later, he was made its number-two official, and, a year after that, Bush appointed him director of fema.

It’s bad enough when attorneys are named to government jobs for which their careers, no matter how distinguished, don’t qualify them. But Brown wasn’t a distinguished lawyer: He was hardly a lawyer at all. When he left the iaha, he was a 47-year-old with a very thin resume and no job. Yet he was also what’s known in the Mafia as a “connected guy.” That such a person could end up in one of the federal government’s most important positions tells you all you need to know about how the Bush administration works–or, rather, doesn’t.

Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

(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.)

Another spot on analysis by writer William Rivers Pitt on the nature of the Bushevik regime. We at USTV have been consistently comparing the Bush syndicate to former communist regimes, particularly the corrupt single party state under the control of the likes of Leonid Brezhnev. Today we are living in a new U.S.S.A. And its no wonder that the Bush family is so enamored with doing business with their likeminded compatriots, the communist party of China, selling us out to them step by step, one transnational unaccountable global corporation at a time.

It’s funny in an awful sort of way. The defining events of the last fifty years all centered around the Cold War and the eventual demise of the Soviet system. Toward the end of the Soviet regime, their government was often forced to grossly overstate the size of grain harvests or the preparedness of their military in order to maintain an illusion of strength and order. In other words, intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy. In essence, fixing the facts became the policy.

Self-deception was piled upon self-deception. Rather than address the systemic problems within the nation, the Soviet regime chose instead to massage the illusions until the problems became too huge to overcome. Pretending everything was fine became the chosen course of action, and the state’s ability to manufacture a pleasing reality became a perfect circle of inaction and delusion. By the time the tanks rolled and the Wall fell, the deal had already gone down.

Sound familiar?

There has been a lot of noise lately in the news media about the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame, and whether Bush advisor Karl Rove was the button-man who brought her down. Press coverage of this issue has been unexpectedly tenacious. White House spokesman Scott McClellan has been leaving his podium after press conferences lately with fresh bite marks all over his ankles and legs. The intensity of the pursuit on this issue has a lot to do with Times reporter Judy Miller. Like her, hate her, respect her or disdain her, but one thing is clear: The White House press corps is bird-dogging this story with alacrity because one of their own has wound up in the bucket because of it.

Yet even with all the coverage - The Time cover, the Newsweek cover, the growling at the press conferences, the intensity of media attention that has not even been deflected by a Supreme Court nomination - the press and far too many people seem to be letting the larger issue slide by. Reporters, columnists and talking heads chew over minute permutations of the story like whether Rove actually said Plame’s name, or whether he used her maiden name, or whether he “knowingly” did any of this. The trees are certainly interesting, but the forest deserves a lot more attention.

In short, George W. Bush and his administration are pursuing a course of determined unreality that mirrors the delusional fantasies that ultimately consigned the Soviet Union to the dustbin of history. This Rove-Plame thing is but one small aspect of the main.

Read the full essay here…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/072205Y.shtml

Public Catching On To Dirty Deeds
By Bill Gallagher
Niagara Falls Reporter

DETROIT — Lying and denying, kicking and screaming, the Busheviks are defending comrade Karl Rove from the enemies of the state who are attacking him. We now have the “smoking gun” evidence that Rove was involved in the sordid scheme to “out” CIA officer Valerie Plame.

Retribution, a quintessential Rove political weapon, brought him to expose Plame and risk national security in the process to get back at her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, for telling the truth about George W. Bush’s phony claims that Saddam Hussein was shopping for enriched uranium. Wilson debunked the bogus story that Iraq was seeking the nuclear material in Niger. That was a body blow for the Busheviks, who had worked so diligently to “fix” intelligence and build the lies to justify the invasion of Iraq.

A few weeks ago, when Rove claimed liberals coddled terrorists and wanted to provide them “therapy,” I offered a few thoughts about the deputy White House chief of staff, the president’s “brain,” and designer of his political career.

Continue this article here…
http://www.niagarafallsreporter.com/gallagher222.html

In Secretly Taped Conversations, Glimpses of the Future President
By David D. Kirkpatrick
The New York Times

February 20th, 2005

Washington - As George W. Bush was first moving onto the national political stage, he often turned for advice to an old friend who secretly taped some of their private conversations, creating a rare record of the future president as a politician and a personality.

In the last several weeks, that friend, Doug Wead, an author and former aide to Mr. Bush’s father, disclosed the tapes’ existence to a reporter and played about a dozen of them.
Variously earnest, confident or prickly in those conversations, Mr. Bush weighs the political risks and benefits of his religious faith, discusses campaign strategy and comments on rivals. John McCain “will wear thin,” he predicted. John Ashcroft, he confided, would be a “very good Supreme Court pick” or a “fabulous” vice president. And in exchanges about his handling of questions from the news media about his past, Mr. Bush appears to have acknowledged trying marijuana.

Mr. Wead said he recorded the conversations because he viewed Mr. Bush as a historic figure, but he said he knew that the president might regard his actions as a betrayal. As the author of a new book about presidential childhoods, Mr. Wead could benefit from any publicity, but he said that was not a motive in disclosing the tapes.

The White House did not dispute the authenticity of the tapes or respond to their contents. Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said, “The governor was having casual conversations with someone he believed was his friend.” Asked about drug use, Mr. Duffy said, “That has been asked and answered so many times there is nothing more to add.”

The conversations Mr. Wead played offer insights into Mr. Bush’s thinking from the time he was weighing a run for president in 1998 to shortly before he accepted the Republican nomination in 2000. Mr. Wead had been a liaison to evangelical Protestants for the president’s father, and the intersection of religion and politics is a recurring theme in the talks.

Preparing to meet Christian leaders in September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, “As you said, there are some code words. There are some proper ways to say things, and some improper ways.” He added, “I am going to say that I’ve accepted Christ into my life. And that’s a true statement.”

But Mr. Bush also repeatedly worried that prominent evangelical Christians would not like his refusal “to kick gays.” At the same time, he was wary of unnerving secular voters by meeting publicly with evangelical leaders. When he thought his aides had agreed to such a meeting, Mr. Bush complained to Karl Rove, his political strategist, “What the hell is this about?”

Mr. Bush, who has acknowledged a drinking problem years ago, told Mr. Wead on the tapes that he could withstand scrutiny of his past. He said it involved nothing more than “just, you know, wild behavior.” He worried, though, that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign, and he blamed his opponents for stirring rumors. “If nobody shows up, there’s no story,” he told Mr. Wead, “and if somebody shows up, it is going to be made up.” But when Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, “I haven’t denied anything.”

He refused to answer reporters’ questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: “I wouldn’t answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don’t want some little kid doing what I tried.”

He mocked Vice President Al Gore for acknowledging marijuana use. “Baby boomers have got to grow up and say, yeah, I may have done drugs, but instead of admitting it, say to kids, don’t do them,” he said.

Mr. Bush threatened that if his rival Steve Forbes attacked him too hard during the campaign and won, both Mr. Bush, then the Texas governor, and his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida, would withhold their support. “He can forget Texas. And he can forget Florida. And I will sit on my hands,” Mr. Bush said.

The private Mr. Bush sounds remarkably similar in many ways to the public President Bush. Many of the taped comments foreshadow aspects of his presidency, including his opposition to both anti-gay language and recognizing same-sex marriage, his skepticism about the United Nations, his sense of moral purpose and his focus on cultivating conservative Christian voters.

Mr. Wead said he withheld many tapes of conversations that were repetitive or of a purely personal nature. The dozen conversations he agreed to play ranged in length from five minutes to nearly half an hour. In them, the future president affectionately addresses Mr. Wead as “Weadie” or “Weadnik,” asks if his children still believe in Santa Claus, and chides him for skipping a doctor’s appointment. Mr. Bush also regularly gripes about the barbs of the press and his rivals. And he is cocky at times. “It’s me versus the world,” he told Mr. Wead. “The good news is, the world is on my side. Or more than half of it.”

Other presidents, such as Richard M. Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson, secretly recorded conversations from the White House. Some former associates of President Bill Clinton taped personal conversations in apparent efforts to embarrass or entrap him. But Mr. Wead’s recordings are a rare example of a future president taped at length without his knowledge talking about matters of public interest like his political strategy and priorities.

Mr. Wead first acknowledged the tapes to a reporter in December to defend the accuracy of a passage about Mr. Bush in his new book, “The Raising of a President.” He did not mention the tapes in the book or footnotes, saying he drew on them for only one page of the book. He said he never sought to sell or profit from them. He said he made the tapes in states where it was legal to do so with only one party’s knowledge.

Mr. Wead eventually agreed to play a dozen tapes on the condition that the names of any private citizens be withheld. The New York Times hired Tom Owen, an expert on audio authentication, to examine samples from the tapes. He concluded the voice was that of the president.

A White House adviser to the first President Bush, Mr. Wead said in an interview in The Washington Post in 1990 that Andrew H. Card Jr., then deputy chief of staff, told him to leave the administration “sooner rather than later” after he sent conservatives a letter faulting the White House for inviting gay activists to an event. But Mr. Wead said he left on good terms. He never had a formal role in the current president’s campaign, though the tapes suggest he had angled for one.

Mr. Wead said he admired George W. Bush and stayed in touch with some members of his family. While he said he has not communicated with the president since early in his first term, he attributed that to Mr. Bush’s busy schedule.

Mr. Wead said he recorded his conversations with the president in part because he thought he might be asked to write a book for the campaign. He also wanted a clear account of any requests Mr. Bush made of him. But he said his main motivation in making the tapes, which he originally intended to be released only after his own death, was to leave the nation a unique record of Mr. Bush.

“I believe that, like him or not, he is going to be a huge historical figure,” Mr. Wead said. “If I was on the telephone with Churchill or Gandhi, I would tape record them too.”

Summer of 1998

The first of the taped conversations Mr. Wead disclosed took place in the summer of 1998, when Mr. Bush was running for his second term as Texas governor. At the time, Mr. Bush was considered a political moderate who worked well with Democrats and was widely admired by Texans of both parties. His family name made him a strong presidential contender, but he had not yet committed to run.

Still, in a conversation that November on the eve of Mr. Bush’s re-election, his confidence was soaring. “I believe tomorrow is going to change Texas politics forever,” he told Mr. Wead. “The top three offices right below me will be the first time there has been a Republican in that slot since the Civil War. Isn’t that amazing? And I hate to be a braggart, but they are going to win for one reason: me.”

Talking to Mr. Wead, a former Assemblies of God minister who was well connected in conservative evangelical circles, Mr. Bush’s biggest concern about the Republican presidential primary was shoring up his right flank. Mr. Forbes was working hard to win the support of conservative Christians by emphasizing his opposition to abortion. “I view him as a problem, don’t you?” Mr. Bush asked.

Mr. Bush knew that his own religious faith could be an asset with conservative Christian voters, and his personal devotion was often evident in the taped conversations. When Mr. Wead warned him that “power corrupts,” for example, Mr. Bush told him not to worry: “I have got a great wife. And I read the Bible daily. The Bible is pretty good about keeping your ego in check.”

In November 1999, he told his friend that he had been deeply moved by a memorial service for students who died in an accident when constructing a Thanksgiving weekend bonfire at Texas A & M University, especially by the prayers by friends of the students.

In another conversation, he described a “powerful moment” visiting the site of the Sermon on the Mount in Israel with a group of state governors, where he read “Amazing Grace” aloud. “I look forward to sharing this at some point in time,” he told Mr. Wead about the event.

Preparing to meet with influential Christian conservatives, Mr. Bush tested his lines with Mr. Wead. “I’m going to tell them the five turning points in my life,” he said. “Accepting Christ. Marrying my wife. Having children. Running for governor. And listening to my mother.”

In September 1998, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead that he was getting ready for his first meeting with James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, an evangelical self-help group. Dr. Dobson, probably the most influential evangelical conservative, wanted to examine the candidate’s Christian credentials.

“He said he would like to meet me, you know, he had heard some nice things, you know, well, ‘I don’t know if he is a true believer’ kind of attitude,” Mr. Bush said.

Mr. Bush said he intended to reassure Dr. Dobson of his opposition to abortion. Mr. Bush said he was concerned about rumors that Dr. Dobson had been telling others that the “Bushes weren’t going to be involved in abortion,” meaning that the Bush family preferred to avoid the issue rather than fight over it.

“I just don’t believe I said that. Why would I have said that?” Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead with annoyance.

By the end of the primary, Mr. Bush alluded to Dr. Dobson’s strong views on abortion again, apparently ruling out potential vice presidents including Gov. Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania and Gen. Colin L. Powell, who favored abortion rights. Picking any of them could turn conservative Christians away from the ticket, Mr. Bush said.

“They are not going to like it anyway, boy,” Mr. Bush said. “Dobson made it clear.”

Signs of Concern

Early on, though, Mr. Bush appeared most worried that Christian conservatives would object to his determination not to criticize gay people. “I think he wants me to attack homosexuals,” Mr. Bush said after meeting James Robison, a prominent evangelical minister in Texas.

But Mr. Bush said he did not intend to change his position. He said he told Mr. Robison: “Look, James, I got to tell you two things right off the bat. One, I’m not going to kick gays, because I’m a sinner. How can I differentiate sin?”

Later, he read aloud an aide’s report from a convention of the Christian Coalition, a conservative political group: “This crowd uses gays as the enemy. It’s hard to distinguish between fear of the homosexual political agenda and fear of homosexuality, however.”

“This is an issue I have been trying to downplay,” Mr. Bush said. “I think it is bad for Republicans to be kicking gays.”

Told that one conservative supporter was saying Mr. Bush had pledged not to hire gay people, Mr. Bush said sharply: “No, what I said was, I wouldn’t fire gays.”

As early as 1998, however, Mr. Bush had already identified one gay-rights issue where he found common ground with conservative Christians: same-sex marriage. “Gay marriage, I am against that. Special rights, I am against that,” Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, five years before a Massachusetts court brought the issue to national attention.

Mr. Bush took stock of conservative Christian views of foreign policy as well. Reading more of the report from the Christian Coalition meeting, Mr. Bush said to Mr. Wead: “Sovereignty. The issue is huge. The mere mention of Kofi Annan in the U.N. caused the crowd to go into a veritable fit. The coalition wants America strong and wants the American flag flying overseas, not the pale blue of the U.N.”

As eager as Mr. Bush was to cultivate the support of Christian conservatives, he did not want to do it too publicly for fear of driving away more secular voters. When Mr. Wead warned Mr. Bush to avoid big meetings with evangelical leaders, Mr. Bush said, “I’m just going to have one,” and, “This is not meant to be public.”

Past Behavior

Many of the taped conversations revolve around Mr. Bush’s handling of questions about his past behavior. In August 1998, he worried that the scandals of the Clinton administration had sharpened journalists’ determination to investigate the private lives of candidates. He even expressed a hint of sympathy for his Democratic predecessor.

“I don’t like it either,” Mr. Bush said of the Clinton investigations. “But on the other hand, I think he has disgraced the nation.”

When Mr. Wead warned that he had heard reporters talking about Mr. Bush’s “immature” past, Mr. Bush said, “That’s part of my schtick, which is, look, we have all made mistakes.”

He said he learned “a couple of really good lines” from Mr. Robison, the Texas pastor: “What you need to say time and time again is not talk about the details of your transgressions but talk about what I have learned. I’ve sinned and I’ve learned.”

“I said, ‘James’ - he stopped - I said, ‘I did some things when I was young that were immature,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “He said, ‘But have you learned?’ I said, ‘James, that’s the difference between me and the president. I’ve learned. I am prepared to accept the responsibility of this office.’ “By the summer of 1999, Mr. Bush was telling Mr. Wead his approach to such prying questions had evolved. “I think it is time for somebody to just draw the line and look people in the eye and say, I am not going to participate in ugly rumors about me, and blame my opponents, and hold the line, and stand up for a system that will not allow this kind of crap to go on.”

Later, however, Mr. Bush worried that his refusal to answer questions about whether he had used illegal drugs in the past could prove costly, but he held out nonetheless. “I am just not going to answer those questions. And it might cost me the election,” he told Mr. Wead.

He complained repeatedly about the press scrutiny, accusing the news media of a “campaign” against him. While he talked of certain reporters as “pro-Bush” and commented favorably on some publications (U.S. News & World Report is “halfway decent,” but Time magazine is “awful”), he vented frequently to Mr. Wead about what he considered the liberal bias and invasiveness of the news media in general.

“It’s unbelievable,” Mr. Bush said, reciting various rumors about his past that his aides had picked up from reporters. “They just float sewer out there.”

Mr. Bush bristled at even an implicit aspersion on his past behavior from Dan Quayle, the former vice president and a rival candidate.

“He’s gone ugly on me, man,” Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead. Mr. Bush quoted Mr. Quayle as saying, “I’m proud of what I did before 40.”

“As if I am not!” Mr. Bush said.

Sizing Up Opponents

During the primary contest, Mr. Bush often sized up his dozen Republican rivals, assessing their appeal to conservative Christian voters, their treatment of him and their prospects of serving in a future Bush administration. He paid particular attention to Senator John Ashcroft. “I like Ashcroft a lot,” he told Mr. Wead in November 1998. “He is a competent man. He would be a good Supreme Court pick. He would be a good attorney general. He would be a good vice president.”

When Mr. Wead predicted an uproar if Mr. Ashcroft were appointed to the court because of his conservative religious views, Mr. Bush replied, “Well, tough.”

While Mr. Bush thought the conservative Christian candidates Gary L. Bauer and Alan Keyes would probably scare away moderates, he saw Mr. Ashcroft as an ally because he would draw evangelical voters into the race.

“I want Ashcroft to stay in there, and I want him to be very strong,” Mr. Bush said. ” I would love it to be a Bush-Ashcroft race. Only because I respect him. He wouldn’t say ugly things about me. And I damn sure wouldn’t say ugly things about him.”

But Mr. Bush was sharply critical of Mr. Forbes, another son of privilege with a famous last name. Evangelicals were not going to like him, Mr. Bush said. “He’s too preppy,” Mr. Bush said, calling Mr. Forbes “mean spirited.”

Recalling the bruising primary fight Mr. Forbes waged against Bob Dole in 1996, Mr. Bush told Mr. Wead, “Steve Forbes is going to hear this message from me. I will do nothing for him if he does to me what he did to Dole. Period. There is going to be a consequence. He is not dealing with the average, you know, ‘Oh gosh, let’s all get together after it’s over.’ I will promise you, I will not help him. I don’t care.”

Another time, Mr. Bush discussed offering Mr. Forbes a job as economic adviser or even secretary of commerce, if Mr. Forbes would approach him first.

Mr. Bush’s political predictions were not always on the mark. Before the New Hampshire primary, Mr. Bush all but dismissed Senator John McCain, who turned out to be his strongest challenger.

“He’s going to wear very thin when it is all said and done,” he said.

When Mr. Wead suggested in June 2000 that Mr. McCain’s popularity with Democrats and moderate voters might make him a strong vice presidential candidate, Mr. Bush almost laughed. “Oh, come on!” He added, “I don’t know if he helps us win.”

Mr. Bush could hardly contain his disdain for Mr. Gore, his Democratic opponent, at one point calling him “pathologically a liar.” His confidence in the moral purpose of his campaign to usher in “a responsibility era” never wavered, but he acknowledged that winning might require hard jabs. “I may have to get a little rough for a while,” he told Mr. Wead, “but that is what the old man had to do with Dukakis, remember?”

For his part, Mr. Wead said what was most resonant about the conversations with Mr. Bush was his concern that his past behavior might come back to haunt him. Mr. Wead said he used the tapes for his book because Mr. Bush’s life so clearly fit his thesis: that presidents often grow up overshadowed by another sibling.

“What I saw in George W. Bush is that he purposefully put himself in the shadows by his irresponsible behavior as a young person,” Mr. Wead said. That enabled him to come into his own outside the glare of his parents’ expectations, Mr. Wead said.

Why disclose the tapes? “I just felt that the historical point I was making trumped a personal relationship,” Mr. Wead said. Asked about consequences, Mr. Wead said, “I’ll always be friendly toward him.”

(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.)