Thursday, May 29, 2003

Dear Friends: It seems that Bush is quietly retooling his White House staff in preparation for the upcoming reelection battle. He's looking for young Republican loyalists, those who are still innocents in the political process, and who still believe in The Great Cause.  "He keeps promoting people up from the farm club to jobs that once were reserved for giants," said professor of public service Paul C. Light, a specialist in bureaucracy. "That means a relatively green team, but one that will take direction from the coach. It could be  interpreted as a sign of extraordinary hubris." ________________________ Washington Post May 29, 2003 Bush Fills Key Slots With Young Loyalists By Mike Allen Washington Post Staff Writer President Bush is quietly retooling the White House staff for his reelection campaign by promoting a group of young loyalists to key positions, further concentrating power with the handful of veteran advisers closest to him. Bush's inner circle, many with ties going back to his Texas days, has stayed largely in place. But there has been substantial turnover in the past few months in the next tier, including the nomination last week of deputy chief of staff Joshua B. Bolten as budget director. Bolten is trusted by Bush but is largely unknown outside the White House. Similar changes have been made in the legislative affairs, personnel and vice president's offices, and will be made soon in the press office. Bush's reelection campaign will be staffed by young aides who take their cues from officials in the West Wing, according to people planning the campaign. "He keeps promoting people up from the farm club to jobs that once were reserved for giants," said Paul C. Light, a specialist in bureaucracy who is a New York University professor of public service. "That means a relatively green team, but one that will take direction from the coach. It could be interpreted as a sign of extraordinary hubris." Aides said Bush's preference for promoting from within gives him a hardworking, committed team beholden only to him, without their own agendas. But other people close to Bush used the term "echo chamber" as they described their worry that a culture so driven by "loyalty for loyalty's sake" could produce a White House that was deaf to brewing political or governing crises. The moves have increased the authority of a few favored White House aides, including senior adviser Karl Rove, as less experienced officials assume the new jobs, current and former administration officials said. "These new folks are going to pull their punches at first," said a veteran of White House meetings. "They don't have the gravitas." White House officials said they agree that is a potential result, but said it was not intentional. A senior administration official involved in hiring said there was "no design to consolidate decision making" and that aides cast a wide net in looking for staff. But the official said replacements were frequently found inside because of their ability to interact with the president and proven performance under pressure. The promotions also help with morale down to the lower levels, the official said. Press secretary Ari Fleischer said the advice Bush gets is "blunt and realistic." He added, "People don't make it into the inner circle if they're sycophants." Several administration officials said Rove, 52, now faces even fewer internal checks on his politically aggressive style. White House communications director Dan Bartlett, a former employee of Rove, has also accumulated power with each departure, according to colleagues. Bartlett, 31, is so admired by some Republicans for his political savvy that some see him as a future Texas governor. "Some of these people will grow into their jobs, and some of them won't," an outside White House adviser said. "Where they don't, Karl and Dan's influence will swell." Bolten's nomination last week was one signal of Bush's approach. Bolten will replace Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., a favorite of GOP conservatives who is returning to Indiana to run for governor. A colleague said Bolten, policy director of Bush's first campaign, has moderate instincts but "never makes an issue of it," having devoted himself to the Bush agenda. By contrast, President Bill Clinton's second budget director was Alice M. Rivlin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office who was well-known on Capitol Hill. One of the leading prospects to succeed Bolten is another insider, Jay Lefkowitz, a domestic policy expert who was director of Cabinet affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush. Lefkowitz has steadily risen as he gained favor with the president, especially after he helped steer Bush through a politically perilous decision to allow federal funding for research on stem cells from a limited number of human embryos. In January, Bush appointed Dina Habib Powell, 29, a former Republican National Committee lobbyist and Capitol Hill aide, as director of presidential personnel. She succeeded Clay Johnson III, who was Bush's executive assistant in the Texas governor's office and has been his close friend for 40 years, since their prep school days at Phillips Academy at Andover, Mass. Johnson was nominated to be deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget and awaits confirmation. Fleischer, who plans to leave for the private sector in July, had the standing and personality to fight with Bush's closest aides over access for himself and the media. He often lost, but sometimes he won. He is likely to be replaced by his deputy, Scott McClellan, who worked for Bush in the Texas governor's office and lacks Fleischer's tartness. Colleagues say Bush's comfort with McClellan may enhance his stature. Bush's first Capitol Hill lobbyist, Nicholas E. Calio, who smoked cigars with lawmakers, was replaced in December by David W. Hobbs, a quiet expert on legislative procedure. Mary Matalin, who was counselor to Vice President Cheney, left the government in January but remains a close adviser. Her public affairs responsibilities were assumed by Catherine J. Martin, 34. The campaign manager is Kenneth Mehlman, 36, who was close to Rove as White House director of political affairs. The White House announced Friday that Mehlman will be succeeded by his deputy, Matt Schlapp, 35. Like Mehlman, Schlapp worked on the staff of Bush's last campaign. The communications director for the reelection campaign is slated to be Nicolle Devenish, 31, who as White House director of media affairs has the unheralded but politically sensitive job of managing relations with local news organizations and national radio shows. Advisers to Bush pointed out that he had a promote-from-within policy when he was Texas governor and took a similar approach in his first race, when he shunned advice from most Washington-based Republicans and instead relied on the ideas bubbling out of his campaign headquarters in Austin. Another reason for the pattern, they said, is that Rove, Cheney, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice have such vast and varied experience that there is little room -- or need -- for other big names. People close to Bush said his aides have taken steps to make sure they are not too insulated from the outside political world. Rove makes constant calls to contacts who are allied with specific constituencies. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, hold "idea dinners" at the vice president's residence where international experts conduct graduate school-style seminars. Bartlett recently held a brainstorming session with top political and corporate communications veterans. A lobbyist said the White House responds to the danger of isolation "not by hiring people from the outside, but by having a vast network on the outside and being very sensitive to what they're saying." Republican sources said Ed Gillespie, 41, a communications strategist in Bush's last campaign, will be named soon as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Gillespie will be a full-time chairman but will not have to sever ties to his lobbying business. Rove pushed for Gillespie, keeping one more job in the family. © 2003 The Washington Post Company ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 3:18:41 PM

Dear Friends: There's a saying in Texas, now adopted as part of their clean highways/litter prevention campaign, that warns "Don't Mess With Texas." House majority leader Tom DeLay , a former Texas legislator himself, should have known better than to get involved with the Republican Party tampering with Texas districting. Tom Ridge and the folks at Homeland Security are soon going to wish that they'd never heard of the state as well. It's not a Watergate, but it's a start. __________________________________ The Hill May 28, 2003 Josh Marshall Just what did DeLay know about the Dems Texas plane? At 34, I thought it'd be a while longer before Id have to say that I hailed from a bygone era. But in my day, if a House majority leader was directly involved in a scandal that triggered a potentially criminal investigation at one cabinet department, an administrative review at another, and a grand jury investigation in his home state, he'd be in some trouble. Members of the opposition party might even push to get to the bottom of it. Luckily for Tom DeLay, though, times change. On NBCs Meet the Press on Sunday, Tim Russert asked his panel about the growing list of revelations about the Texas Republicans efforts to enlist federal law enforcement--and other federal agencies--in helping him settle a political fight back home in Texas. In response, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said, "I don't know enough to comment on that. I mean I just don't know what happened there. I'm just not qualified to comment." Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Pat Roberts (R-Kan.) cracked a couple of jokes and left it at that. Either Biden is shamelessly indifferent to a possible abuse of office by the second-ranking Republican in the House or he was just terribly briefed. So, on the assumption that it was the latter and not the former, let me try to bring Biden up to speed. As everyone now knows, a couple weeks ago, most Democrats in the Texas state House ran off to neighboring Oklahoma to avoid a vote on a DeLay-designed redistricting bill. Texas House Speaker Tom Craddick ordered the Department of Public Safety (DPS) to arrest the runaway Democrats and bring them back to Austin. State troopers from the DPS eventually roped the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) into the manhunt. By tricking them into thinking they were searching for a missing or crashed plane, the DPS got Homeland Security to help track down the airplane of former Texas Speaker Peter Laney (D), whom they suspected of helping ferry Democratic legislators out of the state. That's where things stood when I wrote about this last week. Then last Thursday, Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge declined to release the transcripts of conversations between the Texas DPS and his department because, he said, his departments internal inquiry was "potentially a criminal investigation." The scope of the potential wrong-doing further expanded when it was revealed that the DPS had ordered all its records of the manhunt destroyed on May 14. A grand jury in Austin is now investigating what laws the DPS might have violated by destroying those documents. Given Ridges revelations, few now doubt that people at the DPS and probably some pols in Texas got their hands dirty either in bamboozling Homeland Security or by covering up the bamboozlement after the fact. The big question has been whether DeLay was directly involved in this part of the caper. Delay's spokesmen had insisted that he played no role in the manhunt other than passing on to the Justice Department Craddick's request for federal law enforcement help in arresting the Democratic legislators. Then last Thursday, DeLay took the opportunity to, shall we say, revise and extend his remarks. DeLay conceded that a staffer in his office contacted the FAA to find out the whereabouts of Laney's plane and received information on its location and flight plan. (DeLay first said this information was available to the public on the FAA website; the next day his office conceded that this was not the case.) He then passed that information on to Tom Craddick. In other words, we now know that DeLay was personally involved in the effort to track down Laney's plane. The chain of events went something like this: Early on May 12, Delay's office called the FAA and received information about the whereabouts of Laney's plane. Not long after that, DeLay spoke to Craddick by phone and passed along that information. Then, a short time later, Lt. Will Crais, a Texas state trooper working out of the command center in the conference room adjoining Craddick's office, called the DHS and tricked them into helping search for the missing aircraft. The information Crais used was the information DeLay had passed on to Craddick. Theres plenty we still don't know. But Delay's story keeps changing. And his proximity to three separate investigations--two of them potentially criminal--keeps getting closer and closer. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but maybe Joe Biden would like to revise and extend his remarks as well. Josh Marshall is editor of talkingpointsmemo.com. His column appears in The Hill each Wednesday. Email: Joshua@j-marshall.com ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================      2:12:24 PM

Dear Friends: How many articles and broadcasts will it take to get Bush to acknowledge the non-existence of stockpiled weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Canada, the US, Great Britain, and the list goes on and on, have all published telling articles, similar to the one below from the Toronto Sun. ________________________ Toronto Sun May 25, 2003 Oh, What a Tangled Web Bush Weaves  by Eric Margolis   U.S. President George Bush justified his invasion of Iraq by claiming Baghdad was behind 9/11 and threatened America with weapons of mass destruction. To Washington's profound embarrassment, U.S. forces in Iraq have so far failed to find any unconventional weapons or any links between Iraq and al-Qaida. Most Americans don't seem to care their government launched a war of unprovoked aggression based on fabricated evidence and untruths, or that the president and secretary of state repeatedly misinformed and misled the nation. But now Democrats are accusing Bush of trumping up a war against a nasty but unthreatening Iraq, while failing to combat terrorism, evidenced by last week's bloody terror attacks in Morocco and Saudi Arabia. The White House is trying to deflect rising criticism of its Iraq policy by blaming the Central Intelligence Agency for supplying erroneous information, a ploy originated by former president John F. Kennedy after his Bay of Pigs fiasco in Cuba. But the CIA was not wrong. The agency repeatedly warned the Bush administration, both privately, through leaks and openly, that Iraq was not a threat, did not possess significant offensive weapons systems, and was unlikely to greet American and British invaders as "liberators." Where the CIA went wrong was predicting heavy urban fighting in Iraq. In fact, most pre-war military estimates were mistaken. For example, this column predicted a U.S. victory within two weeks. However, the war lasted for three weeks due to unexpected Iraqi resistance that wrong-footed the U.S. offensive. Most defense analysts, this writer included, foresaw heavy urban combat. But there was only limited city fighting. What happened to Iraq's Republican Guard divisions around Baghdad remains a mystery: they simply vanished or were blown to bits. Guard commanders may have been bought off or gave up when Saddam Hussein went into hiding or was allowed to flee the country - thanks, it is rumored, to a Saudi-brokered deal. But the CIA was correct in warning the White House and Pentagon that Iraq would turn into a tar-baby for the U.S. This is precisely what is now happening. Iraq is in chaos and near-anarchy. U.S. occupation forces have so far been unable to form even a puppet regime, as was done in Afghanistan. The initial American-appointed ruler of Iraq, Jay Garner, a retired general who looked more like a building contractor than an imperial viceroy, has been relieved, along with a State Department lady who was bizarrely named mayor of Baghdad. A neo-conservative diplomat has been brought in to run Iraq. Meanwhile, U.S. firms, led by Texas oil giant Halliburton, VP Dick Cheney's old firm, are fighting like hungry vultures to get a slice of Iraq's petro-wealth. But America now risks a colonial morass in Iraq that may cost even more than the profits it may make from "liberating" Iraq's oil. Flexing political muscle Most ominously, Iraq's Shia majority, long repressed by Saddam's regime, is flexing its political muscle and calling for an Iranian-style Islamic state. Mass graves of Shias executed by Saddam's regime in 1991 are now being cited by the Bush administration as an after-the-fact justification for invading Iraq. But remember it was George Bush Sr., in 1991, who called on Iraq's Shias and Kurds to revolt, then sat back, watching impassively, as Saddam's forces slaughtered the rebels. Why? Because Bush pere and his advisers rightly feared that if Saddam's minority Sunni Muslim regime fell, Iraq's Shias would take over and align their country with Iran. Ironically, this may now be happening. Back to the CIA. Before the war, hawks and neo-conservative supporters sympathetic to Israel's hard right who heavily influence U.S. foreign policy became enraged at the CIA for failing to back their claims Iraq was a deadly threat requiring urgent military action. So they created a special intelligence unit that cherry-picked reports suiting their views, and sent the biased info to the White House and Pentagon. Protests by CIA professionals that the national intelligence function was being politicized and corrupted were ignored. The special intelligence unit relied on bogus reports from Iraqi exiles and carefully crafted disinformation from Kuwait and Israeli intelligence to provide ammunition for the pro-war party. Much of the data delivered to the White House was erroneous. Unconventional weapons were not found, and Iraqis failed to welcome invading U.S. and British forces, as a well-known neo-conservative female columnist had gushingly predicted, "like French in 1944, greeting their liberators with flowers." Contrary to Bush's assurances that invading Iraq would end terrorism and make the Mideast a safer, quieter, more democratic place, last week's terror attacks in Casablanca, Riyadh and Israel showed the invasion had sparked more, not less, terrorism and counter-repression, and that anti-American militant groups were gaining, not losing, strength. Palestinian bombings and Israeli intransigence left Bush's "road map" for peace looking more like a dead end. Early on, Bush vowed to avoid "nation building" and avoid Mideast entanglements. But thanks to his clumsy war on terrorism, his unnecessary invasion of Iraq and his relentless belligerency toward the Muslim world, the Mideast may come to be the nemesis of his administration, just as Iran undid that of former president Jimmy Carter. Copyright © Toronto Sun ________________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:01:57 PM

Dear Friends: President Bush is not alone in being accused of misleading the people about a military threat from Iraq, and the necessity of staging a pre-emptive strike against the country. Last night, Tony Blair stood accused of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war. Blair continues to stand by his belief  in the existence of weapons of mass destruction. _____________________________ The Independent (UK) May 29, 2003 The Case for War is Blown Apart By Ben Russell and Andy McSmith in Kuwait City Tony Blair stood accused last night of misleading Parliament and the British people over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and his claims that the threat posed by Iraq justified war. Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, seized on a "breathtaking" statement by the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that Iraq's weapons may have been destroyed before the war, and anger boiled over among MPs who said the admission undermined the legal and political justification for war. Mr Blair insisted yesterday he had "absolutely no doubt at all about the existence of weapons of mass destruction". But Mr Cook said the Prime Minister's claims that Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes were patently false. He added that Mr Rumsfeld's statement "blows an enormous gaping hole in the case for war made on both sides of the Atlantic" and called for MPs to hold an investigation. Meanwhile, Labour rebels threatened to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for the cardinal sin of misleading Parliament - and force him to answer emergency questions in the House. Mr Rumsfeld ignited the row in a speech in New York, declaring: "It is ... possible that they [Iraq] decided that they would destroy them prior to a conflict and I don't know the answer." Speaking in the Commons before the crucial vote on war, Mr Blair told MPs that it was "palpably absurd" to claim that Saddam had destroyed weapons including 10,000 litres of anthrax, up to 6,500 chemical munitions; at least 80 tons of mustard gas, sarin, botulinum toxin and "a host of other biological poisons". But Mr Cook said yesterday: "We were told Saddam had weapons ready for use within 45 minutes. It's now 45 days since the war has finished and we have still not found anything. "It is plain he did not have that capacity to threaten us, possibly did not have the capacity to threaten even his neighbours, and that is profoundly important. We were, after all, told that those who opposed the resolution that would provide the basis for military action were in the wrong. "Perhaps we should now admit they were in the right." Speaking as he flew into Kuwait before a morale-boosting visit to British troops in Iraq today, Mr Blair said: "Rather than speculating, let's just wait until we get the full report back from our people who are interviewing the Iraqi scientists. "We have already found two trailers that both our and the American security services believe were used for the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons." He added: "Our priorities in Iraq are less to do with finding weapons of mass destruction, though that is obviously what a team is charged with doing, and they will do it, and more to do with humanitarian and political reconstruction." Peter Kilfoyle, the anti-war rebel and former Labour defence minister, said he was prepared to report Mr Blair to the Speaker of the Commons for misleading Parliament. Mr Kilfoyle, whose Commons motion calling on Mr Blair to publish the evidence backing up his claims about Saddam's arsenal has been signed by 72 MPs, warned: "This will not go away. The Government ought to publish whatever evidence they have for the claims they made." Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said: "No weapons means no threat. Without WMD, the case for war falls apart. It would seem either the intelligence was wrong and we should not rely on it, or, the politicians overplayed the threat. Even British troops who I met in Iraq recently were sceptical about the threat posed by WMD. Their lives were put at risk in order to eliminate this threat - we owe it to our troops to find out if that threat was real." But Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "I think it is too early to rush to any conclusions at this stage; we must wait and see what the outcome actually is of these investigations." Ministers have pointed to finds of chemical protection suits and suspected mobile biological weapons laboratories as evidence of Iraq's chemical and biological capability. But they have also played down the importance of finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Earlier this month, Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, provoked a storm of protest after claiming weapons finds were "not crucially important". The Government has quietly watered down its claims, now arguing only that the Iraqi leader had weapons at some time before the war broke out. Tony Benn, the former Labour minister, told LBC Radio: "I believe the Prime Minister lied to us and lied to us and lied to us. The whole war was built upon falsehood and I think the long-term damage will be to democracy in Britain. If you can't believe what you are told by ministers, the whole democratic process is put at risk. You can't be allowed to get away with telling lies for political purposes." Alan Simpson, Labour MP for Nottingham South, said MPs "supported war based on a lie". He said: "If it's right Iraq destroyed the weapons prior to the war, then it means Iraq complied with the United Nations resolution 1441." The former Labour minister Glenda Jackson added: "If the creators of this war are now saying weapons of mass destruction were destroyed before the war began, then all the government ministers who stood on the floor in the House of Commons adamantly speaking of the immediate threat are standing on shaky ground." The build-up to war.  What they said: Intelligence leaves no doubt that Iraq continues to possess and conceal lethal weapons --George Bush, Us President 18 March, 2003 We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd --Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003 Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction --Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary 2 April, 2003 Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit --Tony Blair 28 April, 2003 It is possible Iraqi leaders decided they would destroy them prior to the conflict --Donald Rumsfeld, US Defence Secretary 28 May, 2003 © 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd _______________________________ In peace, Otoño ________________________________ Read all about it and get the news that matters by receiving the War and Peace Watch. To subscribe, send an e-mail to:  Reikiworks@compuserve.com Thank you for your support, The War and Peace Watch publisher. contact:  Otoño Johnston ============================================================ (In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment  for research and educational purposes only.) ============================================================ 2:01:03 PM

Dear Craig: Here is a precis of the War and Peace Watch for you: ******************************** The War and Peace Watch provides, through the web site and a series of daily e-mailings, carefully selected pieces from the international press, web sites, and a variety of reputable sources not often read in the US. The newsletter began at the time of the invasion of Iraq and focused on providing objective and thorough coverage of the war as well as other disquieting activities of our government. Since then, the newsletter's focus has widened somewhat. It continues to report on the role of the media in times of combat and social unrest, civil liberties, and the situation in Iraq.  Given the continued expansion of American involvement in the Middle East, the newsletter will be keeping an even sharper eye on Bush and the neo-conservatives. If you'd like to receive the mailing, please email Otoño Johnston at reikiworks@compuserve.com. Please include your name, email address, and your city and state or country. ******************************* Thanks so much. Best wishes, Otoño 1:57:38 PM