Whistle-Blower: Feds Have a High-Speed Backdoor Into Wireless Carrier - Wired

Quantico A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems, exposing customers' voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance, according to a computer security consultant who says he worked for the carrier in late 2003.

more ...

Free WiFi comes at a price in Denver International Airport - Ars Technica

The limitations of web filtering software have been extensively documented; most software arbitrarily excludes sites with educational or other sophisticated content, while clearly pornographic material sporadically slips through. Oddly, the limitations haven't stopped organizations or, in the case of Australia, an entire government from attempting to deploy them. The international airport in Denver recently took the plunge and started using filtering software when they converted their WiFi network to free access. The results are an excellent illustration of what leads an organization to choose a solution that's annoying, arbitrary, and ineffective.

more ...

More FBI privacy violations confirmed - Associated Press

The FBI acknowledged it improperly accessed Americans' telephone records, credit reports and Internet traffic in 2006, the fourth straight year of privacy abuses resulting from investigations aimed at tracking terrorists and spies.

more ...

KY Rep. Seeks To Ban Anonymous Blogging - WebProNews

... Kentucky state representative Tim Couch (R-Hyden), introduced a bill to the General Assembly that would bar Kentuckians from anonymously commenting on Websites, or via their own blogs. The bill would require anyone leaving a comment to provide their real name, address, and email address to the website on which they wish to comment. Website operators would be required to enforce this policy or face fines.

more ...

Bugs Bunny vs. Daffy Duck: Why voters always choose the wascally wabbit for president - Slate

How did we reach the point at which Sen. Clinton, the clear Democratic front-runner six months ago, needs clear wins in Texas and Ohio to mute the calls for her to end her campaign?
... And here's another explanation for this remarkable reversal of fortune, one that represents for me one of the few really reliable rules of presidential political warfare: Bugs Bunny always beats Daffy Duck.

more ...

What piracy crisis? MPAA touts record box office for 2007 - Ars Technica

... But this sort of thing has become crucial to the MPAA. Take a look at the group's homepage; nearly everything is about copyrights and piracy. The MPAA routinely asserts that the movie business is being decimated by piracy, but the press release announcing the Weekly Reader deal sits just below a far more interesting piece of news (PDF): data that shows the US box office doing its biggest year of business ever in 2007, growing 5.4 percent over 2006 and bringing in $9.63 billion.

more ...

Comcast Must Die - MojoBlog

Comcast, the cable TV giant, has given its customers lots of reasons to hate the company. They've refused to embrace a la carte programming, charged people $2 to stop sending them junk mail, wrecked people's credit reports, falsely advertised its Internet speed and generally abused the people who pay for its services. Comcast's customer service problems are so acute that Advertising Age columnist Bob Garfield started a blog called Comcast Must Die to compile all the gripes about the company from consumers. But Comcast doesn't really need any help generating bad press.

more ...

AT&T's degrading service and my landlord’s ban on Comcast - ZDNet

With all the negative attention headed towards Comcast lately, AT&T's problems seem to be slipping below the radar. Unfortunately for me, those problems are first hand for me as I'm personally suffering degradations in speed. As if getting 1200 Kbps downstream on a so-called 1500 Mbps service and all those outage problems (example here and here) weren't bad enough, my AT&T DSL service has declined. I suppose I could count myself lucky compared to my Mom's neighbor who only got 320 Kbps service after AT&T unilaterally and without permission "upgraded" his bill to the 1500 Mbps service without upgrading his performance.

more ...

Great news for Microsoft: Zunes stolen! - ZDNet

Providing yet another sign that Apple's iPod is the audio and video platform, a policy think-tank on Tuesday said that thefts of the media player have skewed crime statistics. Microsoft wishes it had that publicity.

more ...

The Gaza Bombshell - Vanity Fair

After failing to anticipate Hamas's victory over Fatah in the 2006 Palestinian election, the White House cooked up yet another scandalously covert and self-defeating Middle East debacle: part Iran-contra, part Bay of Pigs. With confidential documents, corroborated by outraged former and current U.S. officials, David Rose reveals how President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, and Deputy National-Security Adviser Elliott Abrams backed an armed force under Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan, touching off a bloody civil war in Gaza and leaving Hamas stronger than ever.

more ...

Could a Coffee Maker Be Worth $11,000? - Slate

The New York Times used words like "cult object," "majestic," and "titillating"; the Economist called it "ingenious" and "sleek." The subject of these encomiums is, incongruously, a commercial coffee machine—the Clover 1s, an $11,000 device that brews regular coffee (not espresso) one cup at a time. Could the Clover represent that much of an advance in the state of the coffee art? I had to try it for myself.

more ...

via The Reporters on BBC.com

Ohio Democratic Primary

Barack Obama 5/6
Hillary Clinton 5/6

Election Winner

Democrats 1/2
Republicans 6/4
Independent 20/1

Who will be elected U.S. President?

Barack Obama 8/11
John McCain 6/4
Hillary Clinton 6/1
Michael Bloomberg 20/1
Mike Huckabee 33/1
Ron Paul 150/1

Democratic Candidate

Barack Obama 1/6
Hillary Clinton 7/2

Republican Candidate

John McCain 1/50
Mike Huckabee 14/1
Ron Paul 200/1

Secret Service defends security at Obama rally in Dallas - Star-Telegram

The U.S. Secret Service on Friday defended its handling of security during a massive rally in downtown Dallas for Barack Obama, saying there was no "lapse" in its "comprehensive and layered security plan," which called for some people to be checked for weapons, while others were not.

GOP politics in a nutshell - Glenn Greenwald/Salon

The House Republicans have produced a new dramatic ad (below) complaining about expiration of The Protect America Act and demanding immediate passage of the Cheney/Rockefeller Senate bill -- thus vesting in the government the power to spy on us with no warrants and vesting in the telecom industry license to break the law with no consequences -- as the only way for us to avoid imminent, violent death (h/t Kathryn Jean Lopez). The ad -- entitled "America at Risk" -- should immediately be mounted on a museum wall under a plaque that reads: "The Republican Party in the U.S., 2001-2008 (and counting)."

Will you trust your medical information to Google? - ZDNet

The Cleveland Clinic has announced a partnership with Google that will essentially be a soft launch of the long-awaited Google Health personal health record service. Privacy concerns may not be too far behind.

If it can happen to a Governor ... - Daily Kos

One of the most shocking stories to grow out of the U.S. attorney firing scandal was the case of Alabama's former Democratic governor, Don Siegelman. Seigelman was convicted on corruption charges last year. That conviction, and the pressure that came from the Bush Justice Department to secure it, has been a focus of Congressional hearings, and now a 60 Minutes story that will air on Sunday.

... If you haven't heard of this case, or aren't 100% clear on its details, you owe it to yourself as an American, as a voter, or just as an educated, capable adult human being with any amount of political awareness, to make yourself familiar with this travesty. CBS will only go so far in helping you do it.

MIT Technology Review - Bush's Polar-Bear Problem

The administration tells scientists attending international meetings not to discuss polar bears, climate change, or sea ice.

Polar bears can't get a break these days. First we saw them in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth desperately swimming about in the Artic in search of ice floes that seem to have disappeared due to global warming. Now we hear that experts working for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can't talk about these giant white-furred beasts in overseas scientific meetings about climate change.

The order to squelch talk about polar bears came in a "new requirement" listing to government scientists traveling abroad. Henceforth, if they are participating in a meeting "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears," they need to report this and have a spokesperson assigned to articulate the administration's policies.

Read the rest

Bill Clinton was in town just the other day for on stumping for a fellow Democrat. He spoke for 20 minutes and here are a couple of quotes:

This is not your grandfather's Republican Party. It is the narrowest, most extreme, most ideological strip of the Republican Party that has run both the White House and the Congress for six years. And they basically favor the concentration of wealth and power as opposed to equal opportunity and empowerment. They favor special interest politics over the common good. And they favor ideological division over evidence and argument.

We have five years of statistical growth, five years of productivity increase, a 40-year high in corporate profits, but wages are stagnant, poverty is up among working families and the percentage of working families with health insurance for their kids has dropped 4 percent. And that's what you get if you have special-interest, status quo-oriented politics and an ideologically oriented economic theory.

Talking about how Independents and Republicans are fed up with the Bush administration's hard right ideology and the chaos in Iraq and are ready to cast the "diving board vote" Democrats hope will carry them to victory Tuesday:

That's where the country is now, that's where the undecided voters are. They're standing on the diving board, looking for somebody to grab 'em by the hand so they can jump off and do what they know they ought to do for their children and their grandchildren's future . . .

The least we can do is spend a few more days looking for people on the diving board and help 'em jump off.

Check out this "poster" of quotes, actions and info on the Bush administration on Jim Hightowers HightowerLowdown.

The New York Times reported this June that Bush was running another spy program. This one was snooping through international banking records, including millions of bank transactions done by innocent Americans. George reacted angrily to the exposure, branding the Times report “disgraceful” and declaring that revelation of his spy program “does great harm to theUnited States.” The White House and its right-wing acolytes promptly launched a “Hate-the-Times” political campaign.

Name the guy who was the first to reveal that such a bank-spying program was in the works: George W. Bush! At a September 2001 press conference, he announced that he’d just signed an executive order to monitor all international bank transactions.

With the Military Commissions Act waiting for Presdident Bush to sign, a few people have spoken up.

Senator Barack Obama - Remarks on the Military Commission Legislation

Global Politician - Scrapping the Geneva Conventions

The Washington Times - Habeas Corpus Sellout

Keith Olbermann - Why does habeas corpus hate America

The Village Voice - Congress Bows To Bush

On the blog The Tattered Coat, Matt has a post about how the Bush administration force the timing of the recent London arrests. His analysis of reports by NBC amonst others is a must read.

This goes way beyond what we understood previously — that the Bush Administration knew about the arrests ahead of time, and timed a PR offensive against the Democrats around it.

It turns out that it was the other way around: the Bush Administration orchestrated the timing of the arrests to coordinate them with the PR offensive, which attacked Democrats after Ned Lamont’s victory in the Connecticut primary.

For the GOP, the short-term political importance of getting the Lamont victory, and the developing sense that America had fully turned against the Iraq War, off the news was reason enough to disrupt an active terror investigation. The disruption hurt the legal case against the terrorists — it will be much harder to convict them without passports or airline tickets. The GOP was so insistent on the timing that they threatened to “render” the lead suspect if the British did not comply with their wishes.

The Republicans, in other words, once again played politics with national security, and hurt anti-terrorism efforts as they did so.

They cannot be trusted to protect us from the threat of terrorism because — to paraphrase The Downing Street Memo — they fix terror investigations around smear campaigns.

Read More

The latest attempt by SaveTheInternet.com to bring people into the net neutrality debate is a downloadable mp3 tune by songwriters Jill Sobule, Kay Hanley, and Michelle Lewis called "God Save The Internet". It is set to the tune of Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man".

The telecoms got out their big money this week and shot down the amendment to the Communications, Opportunity, Promotion, and Enhancement Act of 2006 that would have kept the net neutral. The House of Representatives voted to reject the amendment that would have kept interenet providers from creating a two tiered system.

This is something that the GOP is slipping by the American public, who I feel will not understand the consequences until it is to late. I urge you to read up on this subject and then contact your representatives in the Senate and have them fight for net neutrality.

Articles to read:
Fight hard for 'net neutrality'
Net Neutrality Bill Rejected, Users Fear Consequences
House rejects Net neutrality rules
Defeat for net neutrality backers

The FCC chairman has written a letter to Rep. Edward Markey refusing to investigate possible violations of the Communtications Act citing the Bush Administration's likely claim of "states secrets privilege."

More info:
Rep. Edward Markey
Red Herring
The FCC responce (pdf)

"Here's how it works. The president makes decisions. He's the decider. The press secretary announces those decisions, and you people of the press type those decisions down. Make, announce, type. Just put 'em through a spell check and go home. Get to know your family again. Make love to your wife. Write that novel you got kicking around in your head. You know, the one about the intrepid Washington reporter with the courage to stand up to the administration? You know, fiction!"
- Stephen Colbert

Read the whole Colbert mock "tribute" to President Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner, of which has been written:
"At times hilarious, at times painfully uncomfortable, Colbert's brazen send-up of President Bush -- delivered with Bush sitting a mere 10 feet away -- ranks as one of the ballsiest comic stunts ever pulled in Washington."

Watch it on C-SPAN (RealMedia)

Reuters:

A group of U.S. senators, demanding increased protection of civil liberties, defied President George W. Bush on Friday by blocking renewal of the USA Patriot Act, a centerpiece of his war on terrorism.

A showdown bid to end debate and move to passage of renewal legislation fell eight votes short of the needed 60 in the 100-member Senate. The vote was 52-47, with a handful of Republicans joining most Democrats in a procedural roadblock.

Read On

More to follow soon.

~ Update ~

This is from an email a concerned friend sent me today about this important event affecting our civil liberties.

Five Republican senators backed the filibuster because of their opposition to Patriot Act in its current form. This is serious business folks. It is important for us to contact our representatives and voice our views and to call the Republican senators who voted with democrats and thank them for their courage today. They are no doubt taking a lot of heat from their leadership. It is also crucial to stay vigilant on this matter because its going to get intense next week. Our representatives and those senators who are standing firm on this most critical legislation need to hear from us. We make a difference. Our voice counts. We can and are effecting the decisions that Congress makes.

The Republican senators who have courageously backed the filibuster due to their opposition to the bill were Chuck Hagel (Neb.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), John Sununu (N.H.) and Larry Craig (Idaho). It is also important to contact Democrats Tim Johnson (S.D.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.) and ask them to explain why they voted in favor of Patriot Act today. While were at it, we should call Sen. Jay Rockefeller D-WV and Sen. Pat Roberts R-KS and ask them to explain the presidents secret order to spy on us. They no doubt were aware of it as co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

I encourage all of you to contact these representatives and either thank them for their diligence in protecting our civil rights or ask them why they do not care about them. I have.

Chuck Hagel
Lisa Murkowski
John Sununu
Larry Craig

Tim Johnson
Ben Nelson

Jay Rockefeller
Pat Roberts

Yesterday the House of Representatives GOP leaders spent the better part of an hour debating the "attack" on Christmas. A resolution was brought forth from Virginia Rep. Jo Ann Davis to protect the symbols and traditions of Christmas for those who celebrate it. Rep. John D. Dingell, D-Mich., and dean of the House, joined with a parody of "Twas the Night Before Christmas" that mocked the resolution's priorities at a time of GOP-led tax cuts for the wealthy, war in Iraq and rising fuel prices.

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.

At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

Oh, and Rep. Gary L. Ackerman, a New York Democrat who is Jewish, criticized Davis' unwillingness to add the traditions of Kwanzaa, Ramadan and Hanukkah to her resolution and asked whether it might elevate one set of religious symbols over another or make them "more official." I quess only Christian holidays need to be protected.

This is from a recent email sent to my by a concerned friend.

I am writing you on a matter of utmost urgency. At this moment Sen. John McCain is in negotiations with ranking members of the Armed Service Committee who want to re-work the McCain Amendment to ban TORTURE and water it down so the United State Government can continue to torture, murder and otherwise mistreat human persons with impunity.

The McCain Amendment bans cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of human persons. As a matter of policy the US Government has sanctioned and endorsed with zeal the use of torture violating every treaty we are a signatory to.

It is a national disgrace and to add egregious insult to injury the Administration and GOP leadership are now trying to undo what our elected representatives voted to make law in a bi-partisan 90-9 vote to ban torture which was a stern rebuke to the Administration and its policies.

It is imperative to the future of our Nation, the World, our military and civilian personnel overseas, our children and grandchildren to confront this grave injustice. You can do something right now!

I would encourage first to read the press release below which summerizes this Amendment, and its provisions, and then make an informed decision. If you would take a few minutes today to pick up the phone and call the ranking members of the Armed Services Committed and forcefully voice your support of the McCain Amendment banning torture you would be taking a stand for humanity.

Carl Levin the ranking Democrat is under great pressure and so is John McCain. Call their office and express your support for their courage and leadership. The people doing the bidding for the Administration are:
Sen. John Warner R-VA
Rep. Duncan Hunter R-CA

I am not sure where Rep. Ike Skelton D-MO is on the issue and his office could not tell me. I am getting the sense he may be for water down the McCain Amendment.

If you would take time to call these representatives and your congressional representatives in your district it would be a great service to our Nation and Humanity.

The press release:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN MCCAIN STATEMENT ON DETAINEE AMENDMENTS ON (1) THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL AND (2) CRUEL, INHUMANE, DEGRADING TREATMENT Amendment To The Defense Authorization Bill For Immediate Release Friday, Nov 04, 2005   The following is a statement delivered by Senator John McCain: "Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment that would (1) establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees and (2) prohibit cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of persons in the detention of the U.S. government. Mr. President, this amendment is identical to the one added by a 90-9 vote to the Defense Department Appropriations bill. Because of the extraordinary support for this legislation and its importance to our men and women in uniform, it is imperative that these provisions remain on the appropriations measure, which is now in conference. While I am now offering this amendment to the authorization bill in order to preserve all legislative options, I expect no one to argue that these critical provisions should thus be struck from the appropriations bill. They should not be removed from the appropriations bill; they should stay on that “must-pass” measure to ensure their earliest enactment into law. On that bill, the provisions won the votes of 46 Republican senators and 44 Democrats. In addition, I understand, a clear majority in the House supports these provisions, wants to see them remain intact, and wishes to have them remain on the appropriations measure. I commend Congressman Murtha for his leadership and efforts to date to offer a motion to instruct conferees to keep this amendment intact without modification. I would hope that no one seeks procedural maneuvers to thwart overwhelming majorities in both chambers. Let me be clear, Mr. President, a bicameral, bipartisan majority in support of this amendment will prevail. Even if the will of the majority is thwarted this month, if it is thwarted next month, it will not be denied indefinitely. If necessary, and I sincerely hope it is not, I and the co-sponsors of this amendment will seek to add it to every piece of important legislation voted on in the Senate until the will of a substantial bipartisan majority in both houses of Congress prevails. Let no one doubt our determination. Mr. President, to fight terrorism we need intelligence. That much is obvious. What should also be obvious is that the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all our fighting men and women. To do differently not only offends our values as Americans, but undermines our war effort, because abuse of prisoners harms – not helps – us in the war on terror. First, subjecting prisoners to abuse leads to bad intelligence, because under torture a detainee will tell his interrogator anything to make the pain stop. Second, mistreatment of our prisoners endangers U.S. troops who might be captured by the enemy – if not in this war, then in the next. And third, prisoner abuses exact on us a terrible toll in the war of ideas, because inevitably these abuses become public. When they do, the cruel actions of a few darken the reputation of our country in the eyes of millions. American values should win against all others in any war of ideas, and we can’t let prisoner abuse tarnish our image. And yet reports of detainee abuse continue to emerge, in large part because of confusion in the field as to what is permitted and what is not. This amendment would go a long way toward clearing up the confusion. Army Field Manual The first part of this amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the uniform standard for the interrogation of Department of Defense detainees. The Army Field Manual and its various editions have served America well, through wars against both regular and irregular foes. It embodies the values Americans have embraced for generations, while preserving the ability of our interrogators to extract critical intelligence from ruthless foes. Never has this been more important than today, in the midst of the war on terror. This amendment would establish the Army Field Manual as the standard for interrogation of all detainees held in DOD custody. The Manual has been developed by the Executive Branch for its own uses, and a new edition, written to take into account the needs of the war on terror and with a new classified annex, is due to be issued soon. My amendment would not set the Field Manual in stone – it could be changed at any time. The advantage of setting a standard for interrogation based on the Field Manual is to cut down on the significant level of confusion that still exists with respect to which interrogation techniques are allowed. Confusion about the rules results in abuses in the field. We need a clear, simple, and consistent standard, and we have it in the Army Field Manual on Interrogation. That’s not just my opinion, but that of many more distinguished military minds than mine, including General Colin Powell, General Joseph Hoar, General John Shalikashvili, RADM John Hutson, and RADM Don Guter. These and other distinguished officers believe that the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and elsewhere took place in part because our soldiers received ambiguous instructions, which in some cases authorized treatment that went beyond what the Field Manual allows, and that, had the Manual been followed across the board, we could have avoided the prisoner abuse scandal. Mr. President, wouldn’t any of us do whatever we could to have prevented that? By enacting this amendment, our service members can follow the Manual consistently from now on. Our troops deserve no less. Cruel, Inhumane, Degrading Treatment The second part of this amendment is a prohibition against cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment. If that doesn’t sound new, that’s because it’s not – the prohibition has been a longstanding principle in both law and policy in the United States. To mention just a few examples, this prohibition is contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to which the U.S. is a signatory; and the binding Convention Against Torture, negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the Senate. Nevertheless, the administration has held that the prohibition does not legally apply to foreigners held overseas. They can, apparently, be treated inhumanely. This means that America is the only country in the world that asserts a legal right to engage in cruel and inhumane treatment. What this also means is that confusion about the rules becomes rampant again. With this simple amendment, we can restore clarity on a simple and fundamental question: Does America treat people inhumanely? My answer is no, and from all I’ve seen, America’s answer has always been no. I’d note for my colleagues’ consideration that the State of Israel, no stranger to terrorist attacks, has declared cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment illegal. In 1999 the Israeli Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision to this effect that contained words we may wish to reflect on today. “A democratic, freedom-loving society,” the court wrote, “does not accept that investigators use any means for the purpose of uncovering the truth. The rules pertaining to investigations are important to a democratic state. They reflect its character.” Mr. President, let there be no question about America’s character. In deciding these rules, each member of this body has a vital role. Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the Congress has the responsibility for making “rules concerning captures on land and water.” Not the executive branch, not the courts, but Congress. Our brave men and women in the field need clarity. America needs to show the world that the terrible photos and stories of prison abuse are a thing of the past. Let’s step up to this responsibility and speak clearly on this critical issue. We should do it not because we wish to coddle terrorists. We should do it not because we view them as anything but evil and terrible. We should do it, Mr. President, because we are Americans, and because we hold ourselves to humane standards of treatment of people no matter how evil or terrible they may be. America stands for a moral mission, one of freedom and democracy and human rights at home and abroad. We are better than these terrorists, and we will we win. I have said it before but it bears repeating: The enemy we fight has no respect for human life or human rights. They don’t deserve our sympathy. But this isn’t about who they are. This is about who we are. These are the values that distinguish us from our enemies, and we can never, never allow our enemies to take those values away."

Found this through Instapundit and it left me LOL.

In his latest Security Watch column, Robert Vamosi discusses a bill currently in Congress that could allow big business to decide whether you should be informed if your personal information has been stolen.

Are you being put at greater risk? It sounds like "Congress loves identity thieves"!

Keith Olbermann blogs: "If merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, it underscores the need for questions to be asked in this country - questions about what is prudence, and what is fear-mongering; questions about which is the threat of death by terror, and which is the terror of threat."

A countdown of the last 13 "political downturn for the administration, followed by a “terror event” - a change in alert status, an arrest, a warning"

The Nexus of Politics and Terror

Here are links for a video of his broadcast with 10 of the events.

I was watching the evening news on CBS tonight and caught this line:

"The pigs get fatter and the hogs get slaughtered. And Tom is a hog"

This was said by the Republican Chairwoman of Tom Delays home county or district, I didn't catch which.

Ouch, that has got to hurt!

** Update **

The quote is by Beverly Carter, a Republican precinct chairwoman in DeLay's home district.

For both sides listen to NPR's DeLay's Constituents React to Ethics Woes
and read NewsBusters CBS Highlights Republican Critic of DeLay Who Calls Him a Hog

Check out this dispatch about the Presidents speech from Jackson Square on TomDispatch:

"Don't say they can't. They can -- and they did. Despite every calumny, it turns out that the Bush administration can put together an effective, well-coordinated rescue team and get crucial supplies to militarily occupied, devastated New Orleans on demand, in time, and just where they are most needed. Last Thursday, in a spectacular rescue operation, the administration team delivered just such supplies without a hitch to one of the city's neediest visitors, who had been trapped in hell-hole surroundings for almost three weeks by Hurricane Katrina. I'm speaking, of course, of George W. Bush."

There is some good insight into what New Orleans looks like on Brian Williams blog including this post from the same night:

"The motorcade route through the district was partially lit no more than 30 minutes before POTUS drove through. And yet last night, no more than an hour after the President departed, the lights went out."

To bad the rest of the citizens of New Orleans don't rate as high as Bush for services like electricity.

The Political Campaign Action Fund has put out a fun little list showing how close your representative is to Tom Delay.

Reps from Colorado come in at #'s 2, 17, 36, 203, 256, 358 and 377.

I am happy to say my rep, Diane Degette, is the last one.

On Sunday morning, Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson told TV viewers nation-wide that the threat posed by liberal judges is "probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings." When an incredulous George Stephanopoulos asked if Robertson really believed that these judges posed "the most serious threat America has faced in nearly 400 years of history, more serious than al Qaeda, more serious than Nazi Germany and Japan, more serious than the Civil War?," he responded, "George, I really believe that."

NY Daily News

Media Matters for America

Osha Gray Davidson has a must-read investigation in Rolling Stone about the Bush administration's efforts to create, in a tiny paragraph buried way way down in its federal budget proposal, a "Sunset Commission." And what, pray tell, would this Sunset Commission do?

The proposal, spelled out in three short sentences, would give the president the power to appoint an eight-member panel called the "Sunset Commission," which would systematically review federal programs every ten years and decide whether they should be eliminated. Any programs that are not "producing results," in the eyes of the commission, would "automatically terminate unless the Congress took action to continue them."

Rolling Stone

House Overturns New Ethics Rule as Republican Leadership Yields

Republicans said that they had surrendered to the Democrats to try to restore a way to enforce proper conduct in the House.

"Mr. Hastert's relenting to Democrats' demands marked a startling turn as Republicans confronted the fallout from a stalled ethics process that Democrats said was rigged to protect Mr. DeLay, who was admonished three times by the ethics committee last year."

"One of the most immediate effects of the House's reverting to the old rules will be the opening of an investigation into persistent questions about Mr. DeLay's overseas travel and his relationships with prominent lobbyists. His fund-raising operations are under investigation by a grand jury in Texas, and some of the lobbyists' roles have come under increasing scrutiny by federal investigators in recent months. While Mr. DeLay has not been named as a target of those investigations, the attention paid to his troubles has proven disruptive in the House."

"The vote marked another pivot in a politically charged ethics tug-of-war expected to persist in the House. Lawmakers of both parties said they expected the resolution of the standoff to lead to calls for ethics inquiries into not only Mr. DeLay but also other members, including Democratic leaders."

New York Times

The president's commission on intelligence delivered half a report. Like the general played by Jack Nicholson in "A Few Good Men," the commission acted as if America can't handle the truth. The commissioners would have us believe that those who provided the false intelligence were solely to blame, and the senior political leaders who ordered and presented the claims to the public were passive victims. Conservative pundits have quickly declared, "case closed," and urge us to focus on rearranging the deck chairs on the intelligence ship. But buried deep inside the report is evidence that contradicts the commission's own conclusions and raises serious questions about their recommendations. Most damning is the tale of two CIA analysts who were removed from their positions for "causing waves" when they questioned the reliability of the defector known as "Curveball."

Proliferation News and Resources

GAO Called Tapes Illegal Propaganda

The Bush administration, rejecting an opinion from the Government Accountability Office, said last week that it is legal for federal agencies to feed TV stations prepackaged news stories that do not disclose the government's role in producing them.

The Washington Post

I have received these responses from my representatives in Washington D.C. during the past two weeks. They are responding to a letter written to all of three of them concerning the private accounts that President Bush has proposed. (In my humble opinion it does nothing to address the shortfalls that will eventually hit the Social Security Trust Fund)

Wayne Allard - United States Senator:

In 1997 Congress passed, and I voted for, the Balanced Budget Act, which balanced the federal budget and strengthened Social Security for the first time since 1960. Balancing the federal budget is crucial to protecting Social Security. If Congress does not pass a balanced budget, it has the option of borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund to fund the government.

Balancing the federal budget is the first step toward protecting Social Security. Congress also must reform Social Security and strengthen its solvency. As baby boomers become Social Security beneficiaries in the next two decades, Social Security tax receipts will exceed Social Security benefits paid to beneficiaries.

Unless we take action, Social Security faces certain peril. Although the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated in 2003, that the Social Security Trust Fund had a surplus of $156 billion, the surplus exists only on paper. Current benefits are not paid out of a reserve account, but rather from current Social Security tax collections.

In 2008, baby boomers will begin to be eligible to receive Social Security and our surplus will diminish each year. Although the income collected by the Social Security taxes currently exceeds program expenditures, the system will begin running cash flow deficits in 2018. Social Security will continue to face long-range financing problems, with full insolvency projected to occur in 2029 for the Old Age, Survivors, and Disabilities Insurance (OASDI) part of Social Security and in 2042 for the retirement and survivors part of Social Security.

By law, Social Security cannot write beneficiary checks unless the money is in the Trust Fund. The current system will only be able to survive a limited number of years and we should address reform before the account reaches a crisis point.

In the 109th Congress, Social Security will continue to be a top issue of debate and discussion. President Bush has declared it to be one of his main domestic priorities. Once the President makes a formal proposal to Congress, it will be examined through the democratic legislative process. I intend to be actively involved as Social Security reform proposals are considered in hearings and on the Senate floor. I know that the President's proposal will be thoroughly examined and Congress will not act in haste.

I believe that Congress should provide Americans with investment options to allow them the freedom to manage their money the way they want. Traditionally the Social Security Trust Fund has provided meager annual investment returns. Allowing individuals to invest their retirement dollars into even modest savings accounts, should they desire, would yield substantially higher returns than the current Social Security system, consequently providing Social Security solvency and adequate benefits for taxpayers who worked a lifetime to achieve them. Any component of reform or investment must also allow beneficiaries the option of remaining in the Social Security program as it exists today.

Ken Salazaar - United States Senator

Thank you for contacting me regarding changes to the Social Security system. I value your input on this important issue.

I traveled throughout Colorado these past two months listening to seniors, baby boomers and young adults about the President’s proposal for private accounts. The general response is clear: Coloradans feel that private accounts carved out of Social Security are too risky, their benefits are in jeopardy and their children’s retirement will not be as stable as their own.

Social Security is one of our Nation’s most successful and most important programs. I intend to keep it that way. The Social Security system needs careful adjusting, but two things are clear. We have time to find the right solution overall for the system, and privatization is not the way to go. Again, I am committed to finding a solution to the projected benefit reductions of Social Security.

I will continue to work with my colleagues at finding a common strategy to protecting Social Security benefits and ensuring solvency for years to come.

Diana DeGette - Member of Congress

Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition to President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security. I appreciate the opportunity to learn your views and am pleased to have the chance to share mine.

Like you, I oppose President Bush's plan to partially privatize Social Security. From the few details that have been released about President Bush's plan, it is clear that his plan would fail to address the long-term solvency of Social Security and would add risk to a program that was designed to act as insurance against poverty in old age. In fact, the President's plan would reduce guaranteed benefits to Social Security beneficiaries by at least forty percent in many cases. Additionally, I worry about the massive expense associated with the President's plan. According to a recent analysis, the President's plan would add $4.9 trillion to our nation's debt in the first twenty years of the program's operations. I believe it would be fiscally reckless to pursue a plan that would increase our country's debt burden so significantly, especially at a time when the government has its hands full trying to manage the mountain of debt that has accumulated over the past four years. I do, however, welcome the opportunity to work with other like-minded, fiscally responsible legislators to devise an alternative plan that would ensure Social Security's future viability and would stay true to the founders' original intent for the program. As the debate on Social Security reform continues in the 109th Congress, I will be sure to keep your opinions in mind.

Received this note in an e-mail today and just had to pass it on!

------

If anyone's been bad, it's been little Georgie Walker Bush, and no one we know deserves a lump of coal in his stocking more than Georgie (and of course, Dick, Condi, Donald, and anyone else you care to add to the list).

We know there's only a short time before Xmas, so get on it! If you don't have access to a coal mine anywhere, you can send part of a charcoal briquette - just make sure it's NOT NOT NOT one of the "self lighting" kinds that's embedded with starter fluid. That would most likely be a felony to send through the mail.

And to make it doubly sweet, put your local Republican representative or senator's name and address as the return address. Write whatever you want inside or outside about why George deserves a lump of coal in his stocking.

DUBYA'S ADDRESSES

George W. Bush
43 Prairie Chapel Ranch
Crawford TX 76638

OR

George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington DC 20500

For your district representative's or state senator's address to put as the return address, go to:

http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW_by_USA_Map.shtml

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

------

The full article can be found at http://www.democracymeansyou.com/articles/article.php?ID=248

This is the Fight of Our Lives

by Bill Moyers
Keynote speech
Inequality Matters Forum
New York University
June 3, 2004

There's no question about it: The corporate conservatives and their allies in the political and religious right are achieving a vast transformation of American life that only they understand because they are its advocates, its architects, and its beneficiaries. In creating the greatest economic inequality in the advanced world, they have saddled our nation, our states, and our cities and counties with structural deficits that will last until our children's children are ready for retirement, and they are systematically stripping government of all its functions except rewarding the rich and waging war.

And they are proud of what they have done to our economy and our society. If instead of practicing journalism I was writing for Saturday Night Live, I couldn't have made up the things that this crew have been saying. The president's chief economic adviser says shipping technical and professional jobs overseas is good for the economy. The president's Council of Economic Advisers report that hamburger chefs in fast food restaurants can be considered manufacturing workers. The president's Federal Reserve Chairman says that the tax cuts may force cutbacks in social security - but hey, we should make the tax cuts permanent anyway. The president's Labor Secretary says it doesn't matter if job growth has stalled because "the stock market is the ultimate arbiter."

You just can't make this stuff up. You have to hear it to believe it. This may be the first class war in history where the victims will die laughing.

But what they are doing to middle class and working Americans -- and to the workings of American democracy -- is no laughing matter. Go online and read the transcripts of Enron traders in the energy crisis four years ago, discussing how they were manipulating the California power market in telephone calls in which they gloat about ripping off "those poor grandmothers." Read how they talk about political contributions to politicians like "Kenny Boy" Lay's best friend George W. Bush. Go on line and read how Citigroup has been fined $70 Million for abuses in loans to low-income, high risk borrowers - the largest penalty ever imposed by the Federal Reserve. A few clicks later, you can find the story of how a subsidiary of the corporate computer giant NEC has been fined over $20 million after pleading guilty to corruption in a federal plan to bring Internet access to poor schools and libraries. And this, the story says, is just one piece of a nationwide scheme to rip off the government and the poor.

Let's face the reality: If ripping off the public trust; if distributing tax breaks to the wealthy at the expense of the poor; if driving the country into deficits deliberately to starve social benefits; if requiring states to balance their budgets on the backs of the poor; if squeezing the wages of workers until the labor force resembles a nation of serfs -- if this isn't class war, what is?

It's un-American. It's unpatriotic. And it's wrong.

Please read the whole speech: http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0616-09.htm

As the sun sets on this final day before this years election commences, here are some of the stories that have caught my eye.

Campaign Premortem Postmortem - By Dante Chinni

So you want to know who's going to win, right? That makes sense, and it's only fair. You deserve something for sitting through Zell Miller's GOP convention speech and Bob Graham's monologue at the Democratic show.

Well, everyone in this town would love to tell you - it would allow them to start kissing up to the right people sooner. But the truth is, no one knows who's going to win. The 2004 campaign is different, full of complicated issues, and playing out before a divided, charged-up electorate.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1102/p08s02-codc.html

One Book, Two Book, Red Book, Blue Book - by Leonard Riggio

If you follow the sales of books closely enough, you are bound to come across a beguiling revelation or two. Here's one: the humor category is dominated by liberals and left-leaning authors. In fact, 95 percent of the sales in the political humor section comes from the left. Whether this means that conservative writers have no sense of humor, or that publishing houses fail to recognize it, is worthy of study - or even loud protest from the right.

Indeed, the right seems convinced that booksellers and publishers are trying to influence the election by publishing and prominently displaying books that attack President Bush. In stores across America, angry citizens can be found poring over book displays and tallying up the number of titles according to their political persuasion. If they don't like the mix, they run to their phones and complain to their favorite radio talk-show host. Pity the poor bookseller who gets caught in the middle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/01/opinion/01riggio.html

Judges Limit Challengers at Ohio Polls - All Things Considered

Two federal judges rule that only poll workers may challenge voter eligibility in Ohio, warning that Republican and Democratic plans would disrupt the polling process. Appeals have already been filed in the key swing state.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4137277

The Electoral College Explained - By Kristina Dell

How the vote works, how some post-election scenarios could play out — and why, for all its flaws, this is still a good system

Winston Churchill was fond of using the old saw that "democracy is the worst form of government — except for everything else." Many would say the same for the Electoral College. Get ready for its quirks and foibles to dominate the airwaves Tuesday if the election stays as close as the polls indicate. Here's a look at how it works, whom it favors and how it could influence the presidential outcome.

http://www.time.com/time/election2004/article/0,18471,749496,00.html

First he says there is no strong evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3715396.stm

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/05rumsfeld.html

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm

And then he says he was misunderstood. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=6414697

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_5401.shtml

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/04/rumsfeld.iraq/

Well, which is it Donald?

A small collection of articles that have caught my eye about the recent debate:

• In Debate, Kerry and Bush Stand Firm for 90 Minutes - 10.01.2004 - NYT
• Not Enough: John Kerry was able to stir the faithful, but his performance wasn't enough to change the dynamics of the race. - 10.01.2004 - The Weekly Standard
• Keeping Score: A round-by-round look at how Bush and Kerry did during the debate. - 10.01.2004 - The Weekly Standard
• Even I'm Impressed - 10.01.2004 - The Dreyfuss Report
• Key points: Kerry-Bush debate - 10.01.2004 - BBC
• Analysis: No knockout blow - 10.01.2004 - BBC
• Debate? What Debate?: There was much ground left uncovered. - 10.01.2004 - The National Review
• Don’t Shoot the Messenger . . . ’cause this assessment’s grim. - 10..01.2004 - The National Review
• Debate #1: How Did They Do? - 10.01.2004 - The National Review
• Presidential Fiction: The Story Behind the Debate - 10.01.2004 - MotherJones

I have to say that I am still not sure who it is I will vote for, I kind of don't like either one of them. I will have to pick what I feel is the lesser of two evils.

Having said that, I was rather impressed with Kerry, he put on a better performance than I thought he would. George was just the same old George, who looked like he was getting bored and tired as the debate went on.

Of course they both said the same thing over and over. Now I have to sit down with the transcript and read what they really said.

2004 First Presidential Debate (pdf file)

Taken from BBC

The head-to-head between President George W Bush and challenger John Kerry drew a high level of interest overseas, even though Europeans had to stay up late to see it and Asians had to wait until Friday morning their time.

TV stations such as Singapore's Channel NewsAsia carried the whole debate with commentary, and China sent five professors to attend the debate to learn more about US politics.

In Europe and the Middle East, many observers saw Mr Kerry grasping a narrow victory in the candidates' first TV encounter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush didn't lose much and Kerry didn't gain much. Both failed to set a date for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This was the US foreign policy debate - however, it did not remotely touch on the longest conflict in the Middle East area. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict got lost between North Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pan-Arab al-Arabiya TV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry tried to say that Bush's attack on Iraq deviated from the fight against terrorism. However, George Bush once again stressed that the world is a much safer place after the fall of Saddam, but he failed to produce any evidence to prove his claim... It is not clear yet as to whether the ordinary voters in America paid any attention to contradictions in Bush's remarks.

Iranian state radio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry won - at least the first television debate.

German ZDF television news bulletin

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry managed to keep the outcome open in this duel. I had the impression that Bush used his popular appeal very cleverly. Kerry is against unilateral American actions. He doesn't believe that the superpower America can solve all the problems of this world alone. That corresponds with the beliefs of... the German government.

Gernot Erler, senior lawmaker with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's Social Democrats, on German n-tv

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry seemed to show that he had the stuff to be president. He had more facts in his head and he was able to explain his position in Iraq. He is back in the race. This will help him in the race.

Stephan Strothe, commentator on German N24 news channel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bush surprised me in one regard: he paid attention to detail, committed no gaffes, he mentioned everyone's name correctly. He even remembered the name of the president of Sudan, Omar al-Bashir, which I doubt many people will remember.

Commentator Nuno Rogeiro on Portuguese SIC Noticias 24-hour news channel

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that neither one of the candidates can claim a resounding victory. Nevertheless, I believe Bush has made enough progress to deny Kerry a turn and the recovery which he would have aimed for in this challenge.

Washington correspondent Luis Costa Ribas, on Portugal's SIC Noticias

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Democrat candidate John Kerry has regained composure and last night scored points in the first presidential debate held at the Miami University. However, no exciting battle but rather a self-confident exchange of known arguments took place... For Kerry this is a come-back to the fight which he was gradually losing...

Czech Radio 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Kerry emerged from today's debate as the winner. Not only as regards the contents of the debate, when he demonstrated deep knowledge - surprisingly, he fared better also as regards the style. While Bush gave the impression of being tired and at times irritated, Kerry was calm and relaxed and showed the Americans that he also has a presidential style.

Radio Slovakia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Americans elect their president, their choice is based on his domestic policy, not on his policy towards Russia. In this connection, the second debate will be most important for both candidates when they will be answering questions from viewers, as well as the third debate devoted to internal policy.

Chairman of the Federation Council International Affairs Committee Mikhail Margelov, on Russian Ekho Moskvy radio

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Events in the hall looked more like a well-rehearsed TV show than a clash between genuinely irreconcilable opponents.

Russian NTV Mir television

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kerry said one new thing after all. He said that we should sit down with the Islamic world and discuss matters. It is very important, and it is precisely this that we could not hear from Bush - the recognition that the USA or the West is facing not a couple of mad terrorists but a proportion of the world.

Hungarian TV

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The two men ended the debate pretty much the way they started it... It's hard to say at this point who came off better... I think both men did themselves some good in this debate and I think that the campaign managers on both sides will be breathing a sigh of relief.

South African SAfm Radio, Washington correspondent Simon Marks

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Coinciding with the first Bush-Kerry television debate, Cuban residents in Miami held on Thursday, in the capital of the Cuban-American Mafia, a protest against the recent measures against the Cuban people in the island, near the Florida University Campus.

Cuba's Radio Rebelde

What if the entire world could vote in our presidential election?

Who would win the Kerry vs. Bush election?

You probably already guessed the outcome...

http://www.betavote.com/

A cartoon by Mark Fiore. - Treaties, Shmeaties! What good are nukes if we don't use them?

http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/fiore/2004/08/08_200.html

Did you know that the cell phone industry is about to launch a 411 directory of cell phone numbers? Our numbers could be included, whether we want it or not. That's because the cell phone companies themselves are writing the rules for how and when numbers are made public. They'll also decide if we have to pay more to keep our numbers private.

Join me in telling Congress that we want to keep control over our cell phone numbers and we don't want to be charged more to keep our numbers private.

Click the link below now to tell your Congressional representatives to give you control over your cell phone number.

http://www.EscapeCellHell.org

Contributed by Working Assets

In the next few weeks, the Senate is poised to vote on legislation to fight global warming.

The McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act (S. 139) is a bipartisan bill that mandates limits on greenhouse-gas emissions by U.S. polluters and requires cuts to take effect by 2010.

Last October, the legislation was unfortunately defeated in a 43-55 vote, but Senators McCain and Lieberman are bringing it back to the Senate floor for a new vote later this month.

It has become clear that neither corporations nor the Bush administration will take action to reverse global warming, so it’s up to the thoughtful, independent voices in the U.S. Senate to take up the charge.

Urge your senators to back the McCain-Lieberman bill and slow global warming before it’s too late.

Click here to take action!

From Carnegie Endownment for International Peace:

The American position in Iraq is untenable. The United States has enough raw military power to flatten Falluja and Najaf, but has recognized that this power cannot be used without dooming not only the U.S. venture in Iraq, but the entire U.S. position in the Middle East.

To this military defeat has been added the moral defeat of Abu Ghraib prison, which - domestic repercussions aside - has further inflamed Muslim anger from Morroco to Malaysia. In 1974, President Richard Nixon at the nadir of his popularity sought relief in a visit to Egypt where he was welcomed and feted. There is not an Arab capital in the world that President George W. Bush could visit today.

As a result of both defeats, it is obvious that American threats to use military force against other Muslim states are mostly empty. Power that evidently cannot be used is not true power. This revelation of actual American military weakness makes imperative a fundamental rethinking of U.S. strategy, not only in Iraq but also toward the Middle East as a whole.

If the United States is to put together a regional coalition to stabilize Iraq and allow eventual U.S. withdrawal, one first step is essential. Washington should categorically renounce any intention to use Iraq as a long-term U.S. military base. It should commit to withdraw U.S. forces as soon as an effective international peacekeeping force is established.

This should be matched by a dramatic reduction in the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, now set to become the largest in the world, with 2,000 employees. Ambassador John Negroponte should not be set up to run U.S. Middle East counter-regime operations from Baghdad as he ran U.S. Central American counterinsurgency programs from the embassy in Honduras in the 1980s.

Without such commitments, the U.S. presence and plans in Iraq will go on being seen as an immense danger both by many Iraqis and by neighboring states, Iran and Syria in particular. It will be extremely difficult for these governments to be seen to side with the United States in stabilizing Iraq. Muslim public opinion will continue to see the U.S. campaign in Iraq as part of a strategy of imperial domination of Iraq and the region, and Muslim states that give assistance as American lackeys.

Moreover, as long as U.S. bases are present, it will be much more difficult for any Iraqi regime to portray itself as truly sovereign and not an American puppet. Radical factions will seek support by attacking the bases. The U.S. in turn will be forced to support factions that defend the bases, however unsavory and unpopular they may be. The bases will fuel internecine conflicts, and U.S. troops will be repeatedly drawn out of their bases and into direct involvement in these conflicts.

Scaling back U.S. plans for Iraq would be seen by some in Washington as a military defeat. But we believe that it is essential if the United States is to salvage the current situation. With such commitments, Iraqis who now demand America's departure may welcome America's staying long enough to ensure a stable transition. A U.S. commitment to withdraw would therefore fundamentally change the political dynamics not only in Iraq but in the region.

A new strategy for the region should be modeled on the last two decades of the cold war, when the United States sought to contain threats from the Soviet Union by aligning with Communist China. In combating Al Qaeda and Baath Party remnants, the United States must reach out to states like Syria and Iran, which it has hitherto treated as enemies.

For the past two years, the Bush administration has replicated the failure of the U.S. elites before the Vietnam War to recognize and exploit the splits already developing in the Communist camp. In the late 1960s, the result was the tragic and absurd situation where American soldiers were dying by the thousands in Vietnam in battle against a supposed global Communist threat, even as Soviet and Chinese soldiers were fighting each other along their common border.

America cannot make the same mistake again. The support and participation of Iraq's neighbors is essential if that country is to be stabilized and America to be able to withdraw without humiliation. Without their help, it is highly unlikely that the United Nations will be able to play a successful role. Given the chaos America has created, few European or other states will wish to become involved. Without the strong support of the Muslim world, the United Nations will be seen by Iraqis as simply an American tool.

Iraq's neighbors have different agendas but all fear civil war and instability in Iraq. By relinquishing fantasies of a new imperial base in Iraq, by pledging and planning to withdraw as quickly and as completely as possible, the United States may yet be able to snatch political victory from the jaws of defeat.

This work originally appeared in the International Herald Tribune on May 17, 2004. Joseph Cirincione and Anatol Lieven are senior associates at the Carnegie Endowment.

The Bush administration is considering counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if species are going extinct.

SEATTLE, May 8 — Three years ago, Mark C. Rutzick was the timber industry's top lawyer trying to overturn fish and wildlife protections that loggers viewed as overly restrictive. Back then, he outlined to his clients a new strategy for dealing with diminishing salmon runs. By counting hatchery fish along with wild salmon, the government would help the timber industry by getting salmon off the endangered species list, Mr. Rutzick wrote.

Now, as a high-ranking political appointee in the Bush administration who is a legal adviser to the National Marine Fisheries Service, Mr. Rutzick is helping to shape government policy on endangered Pacific salmon. And in an abrupt change, the Bush administration has decided for the first time to consider counting fish raised in hatcheries when determining if some species are going extinct.

The new plan, which officials have said is expected to be formally announced at the end of the month, closely follows the position that Mr. Rutzick advocated when he represented the timber industry.

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/national/09SALM.html?hp