Friday, June 20, 2003

Re: Ari On "Revisionist Historians" Dear Friends: Ari Fleischer spells out Bush's attack on "revisionist historians." (With apologies to the several historians among our readership.) Twice in the past two days, Bush has attacked those who say Iraq did not have WMD's as "revisionist historians." What exactly does he mean? In his press briefing, Ari Fleischer went into great detail. Bush "describes as revisionist history those who now seem to cast doubt on the accuracy of the intelligence information that stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war." So why hasn't Bush found any of these WMD's? Bush is certain Saddam had the weapons, but Ari says they were destroyed or hidden. How much longer will this charade go on? _____________________________ Press Briefing with Ari Fleischer The James S. Brady Briefing Room June 17, 2003 MR. FLEISCHER: Good afternoon. I have no opening statement for you, so I am at your disposal. Helen -- a fine place to start. Q Can you tell us more of what the President means by revisionist historians? And what is the genesis of that, and on what does he base it? MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday, in the President's remarks, he referred to -- he referred it to revisionist historians who are seeming to make the case that Saddam Hussein likely did not have, or did not have, weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. And the President bases that on some of the statements that he has heard where people are expressing doubt about whether or not the intelligence that was provided to the administration, as well as to Congress for many years was accurate intelligence information. The President has every reason to know that it was, indeed, accurate, just as previous administrations have said so, just as he believes so, and therefore, he said so. And so he looks at it and describes as revisionist history those who now seem to cast doubt on the accuracy of the intelligence information that stated that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction prior to the war. Q Is he certain they have them now and that you will find them? And I have one more follow-up. MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President has repeatedly expressed his confidence that as a result of the actions that we have put in place with the Department of Defense undertaking the search, with the increased number of personnel DOD has now to carry out its mission, as well as the interviews that are being done and will be done with mid-level Iraqi officials, including scientists, the review of the paperwork that we're finding, as well as the expertise of David Kay who is not helping, that we will, indeed, find the weapons of mass destruction. Q And my other question is, in view of some of the faulty intelligence -- assuming it was faulty -- is there any move now to consolidate all the intelligence agencies, or at least to have them work together under one head? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, that's the case now. The DCI, the Director of Central Intelligence, does head all the various agencies. So when you're talking about the National Security Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, they all do report to the DCI through their various channels. Q Just to pin this down, you're saying for the record that the President believes that prior to the war Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, in the period immediately leading up to this most recent war? MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. I think there's nothing new here, nothing has changed. You've heard the President say it many, many times -- yes, that's what the President said then, it's what he believes now, of course. Q Then what is the scenario? Because if there was an imminent threat to the American people that justified the war and no weapons program, as such, has been discovered, then what happened? Were weapons destroyed while U.N. inspectors were there, is that what the President believes? Were they destroyed at another point? And as Helen pointed out earlier, they couldn't have been operational if they weren't really poised to be used, thankfully, against U.S. and other coalition forces. I mean, at the end of the day, isn't it more likely that there is a history lesson here of a weapons program that may have existed, rather than actual weapons that are found? MR. FLEISCHER: No, it's just as the President described it, based on the judgment and the information that he has received. And the reason I think you're seeing it play out in the manner it is, is exactly because of the lengths that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi officials went to hide the weapons of mass destruction that they had. After all, it was the United Nations, when they left Iraq, when they were thrown out of Iraq in 1998, that concluded and told the world that Iraq had failed to account for the thousands of liters of botulin, of VX, of sarin gas. It was the United Nations who put it on the record and reported they had it. Now, of course, we had information that also lent credence to that conclusion. To suggest that Saddam Hussein threw out the inspectors and, therefore, used the fact that the inspectors were gone to destroy his weapons, is fanciful. It's a fit of imagination. So the fact is he did design a system that was intended to conceal it from the inspectors. After all, even in the early to mid '90s, when we did find the proof of the weapons of mass destruction, it was only after defectors told us about it. The inspectors were in the country, and they were unable to find it because of the great lengths the Saddam Hussein regime had gone to perfect their ability to hide and to conceal. And we still are in an environment where whatever they hid, and whatever they concealed could remain hidden and concealed. In addition, as the President has said publicly -- Q But do you know what imminent means, and -- MR. FLEISCHER: In addition -- imminent is my next sentence. I was in the middle of it. (Laughter.) In addition to the fact, the President said earlier, that they may have destroyed some of it. Q I want to follow up on a different topic, and that's fundraising tonight. The President may raise $200 million just in this primary season when he doesn't face a challenger, and the Democrats are obviously knocking themselves out to try to emerge. What's he going to do with the money? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President is preparing for his reelection. And part of the preparation is, of course, to raise money from Republicans and others who support his candidacy across the country. Next year is an election year and the President is preparing for it. Q But, specifically, what's he going to do with the money in the primary season? Does he see this as a strategic advantage to try to undercut the Democratic nominee while that nominee is cash-poor, et cetera? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, every day, there are nine Democratic candidates who are running against the President, saying negative things about the President. And part of the President's efforts next year will be to rebut the statements that will increasingly be made about the President, all from a negative point of view, and to make sure that he has the resource to be able to rebut some of these arguments, and to be able to make arguments of his own. Q Could we see, even this summer, ads promoting his own accomplishments? MR. FLEISCHER: It's much to early for the White House to focus on that aspect of it yet. Q Is that a "no"? MR. FLEISCHER: It's much to early. Q But that's not a "no"? MR. FLEISCHER: Tom. Q For two days in a row -- MR. FLEISCHER: It's still too early. Q For two days in a row the President has now talked about the economy and his economic package, but he hasn't mentioned extending the child credit to lower-income families. Is this still an important part of his program, and what is he going to do to move this through the conference committee? MR. FLEISCHER: It is important. The President has urged the Congress to very quickly reconcile the differences between the House-passed version and the Senate-passed version. It's important to do so. The President is prepared to sign that into law. He wants to sign it into law. And he calls on both parties, House and Senate, to work together quickly to resolve their differences. He does believe that low-income families should get a child credit. Q Is there a reason why he hasn't been mentioning this in the last couple speeches? MR. FLEISCHER: I think there are any number of issues that are on the economic agenda that the President can mention at any given time. He believes in it. He didn't talk today, for example, about extending the death tax permanently, which is something that he also believes in. There are a host of economic issues that he addresses and he talks about them from time to time. Q In his comments in Annandale, he seemed to be a little more pessimistic about the economy than you seemed to be this morning from this podium. He was talking about it being still kind of shaky. Is there -- is the President -- is he viewing the economic data that's come in and the stock market increase in the same way -- MR. FLEISCHER: My word was "mixed;" his word was "shaky." It seems to me that you can put the two together and have the same thing. So I think we're saying the same thing. Q By the same token, is he still encouraged by this huge stock market rally we've had since March? MR. FLEISCHER: It's the exact answers I gave you this morning about that topic. Q One on fundraising, one on Iraq. On Iraq, the President said Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction. You're telling us he is certain the intelligence on which he based that statement is accurate. How can he say it's accurate when the search hasn't turned anything up and isn't finished? MR. FLEISCHER: Because the President is patient, and he understands the American people are patient, as well, in the face -- Q How does he know it's accurate when the search isn't over and it hasn't found any weapons? How can he say the intelligence he got that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, that that intelligence was accurate and reliable when the search isn't done? MR. FLEISCHER: Because the very nature of intelligence -- if the only reason you came to conclusions was because somebody found something, then you wouldn't need any intelligence, you would just wait for events to take place. The intelligence is exactly what allows you to make judgments about future events that are not yet known because you haven't found them. That's the nature of intelligence. Q But isn't the discovery of actual weaponry what demonstrates the accuracy of intelligence -- that he was in possession of actual weaponry? MR. FLEISCHER: And the President is confident in the accuracy of that intelligence. Q How? MR. FLEISCHER: Because based on the history of Iraq, based on Saddam Hussein's previous possession of weapons of mass destruction which were known, based on the fact that I just indicated -- the United Nations, themselves, concluded that Saddam Hussein had failed to account for the thousands of liters of biological and chemical weapons that he possessed. The only way to lend credence to what you're saying is that when the United Nations concluded in 1998 that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have these weapons, that he had failed to account for them, is that Saddam Hussein threw out the inspectors and destroyed his weapons of mass destruction and lost the receipt. How come Saddam Hussein didn't prove to the world that he had destroyed them if, when, indeed, he had them, yet he was not able to show the inspectors who were just in Iraq that he did, indeed, destroy them. That's a fanciful interpretation. That's what the President judges as revisionist. Q That's not evidence, that's an argument. And you said the President is -- knows that the intelligence he got was -- not that he's confident, not that he has faith, but that he knows that that intelligence is accurate. MR. FLEISCHER: The President has every reason to believe it's accurate. Q Based on that argument. On the fundraising thing, the President I guess is expected to raise upwards of $200 million. That's a staggering figure. What should ordinary Americans in this tough economy, mixed, shaky economy, make of that enormous figure? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, one, I caution everybody about jumping to conclusions about how much money ultimately can or will be raised. I think we've had this conversation before about how people are putting that number out there, and I think that's based on the fact that the campaign laws doubled the funding and that people are looking at what he raised in the last cycle. That's not necessarily indicative of how it will be. Whatever the case is for the ultimate number, the President will follow the laws of the land, he will follow the campaign finance laws, and he will ask the American people of all parties to support him. The American people will be the ones who decide how much money the President raises by the amount of support they decide to give him. Q Certainly, but I'm asking about the system and what should people make of our political system that this incumbent President is going to raise this very large amount of money? MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's probably a good indication that the President has a strong amount of support throughout the country. I think it's also an indication that the American people are fortunate not to live in a system where they are compelled to give money from their taxes to support candidates or causes they did not believe in. That would be taxpayer financed campaigns, and I think the American people like the fact that candidates have to seek their support, ask for their support, and are not entitled to take taxpayer money to use for their own reelections when the taxpayers did not support the cause or the candidate in question. That's our American system. It's a newly-reformed system based on the campaign finance laws that President Bush signed into law. Q What will the President base his campaign on? Why does he deserve reelection? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, the President is focused right now on governing. He is doing what needs to be done to prepare for the election year. The President's focus on governing is exactly as he laid out in the State of the Union message, which is on economic security and on national security. Q Two questions, please. With all the questions being asked by the intelligence agencies of the United States, as the Senate is preparing to hold hearings this week presided by Pat Roberts, is the President in favor of there being open hearings so people can answer some of the questions that Terry was asking? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, certainly, the Congress has at its discretion as it goes through its hearing process, decisions about open and closed. Currently, if there's a discussion of classified information, that will be done in a closed session. If it's a discussion of things that are not classified, it can be done in open session. The President has welcomed these hearings. After all, this is information that has been shared with the Congress, going back now some -- one decade in both the open and closed format before. Q My second question, if you would be so kind. Yesterday, the authorities announced the detainment of 14 people involved with the illegal aliens who died in Victoria, Texas last month. Fourteen people have been charged, I think 56 counts. Has the President been following this thing? I know he's been pretty busy with this international agenda. Is this a subject that he's following? MR. FLEISCHER: This is something that's very close to the President's heart. And this is where I think you've heard the President, as a Texan, someone who has seen some of the tragedies that have taken place on our borders, reflect on, because the President looks at this, he looks at it as a matter of values, of, as he puts it, a woman, a mother, who wants to feed a child and come to America for more opportunity. And we need to find a way to welcome people, to have opportunity in the United States. And, as he puts it, when a mother wants to feed a child, she's going to come, she's going to try to come into the United States and give her child a better life. And that's why the President views the importance of improving relations with our allies, and our friends down in Central America and Latin America. That's such an important issue. This is why he was working so hard prior to September 11th to have a reform of our immigration laws. And it is a very sensitive and, I think, matter of compassion with the President. Q Ari, a couple of weeks ago, you said from the podium the President really wasn't concerned about his retractors for the Oval Office. Why now are you concerned? And could you explain -- you didn't answer Steve's question as to why the President deserves people punching a chad or pulling down a lever for him this time? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I indicated that the President right now is focused on governing. And what the President is focused on when it comes to governing is on providing economic security and national security for the American people. There will come a time, but it has not come yet, for the President to engage more in political activity. This is not an election year, but this is the period of time in which incoming Presidents have, historically, prepared for their election years. Q But what's changed? I mean, just a couple of weeks ago, you were not worried at all about the Democrats and what they were saying. And now, you know, you're saying that they have all these negative words about the President, he's going to rebut it next year. MR. FLEISCHER: It's just perfectly consistent. What I've indicated is you've asked me many times from this podium to respond to this barb or that barb that the Democrats like to throw at him, and I typically don't have to engage in that because the President is not. The President is focused on governing. But, as I just indicated, there is an election year coming up next year and the President is going to prepare for it. So there are two tracks to it, and the President is engaged on this track. Q I want to try once more on the approach Terry was trying to get at. Let me ask you first -- and it may have been too close to when you came out here -- but right before you came out the American Medical Association endorsed cloning for research purposes. Anything you want to say on that? MR. FLEISCHER: I have not seen their specific report on it. And as you know, the President's positions on this are well- known. The President is opposed to human cloning in all its forms. And I have not seen any of the nuances in what the AMA has seen or even the headline on what they have said. Q Back on the intelligence in Iraq. After September 11th, there was a great debate in this country about the failure of the intelligence agencies to connect certain dots, because of failures to communicate between agencies, and the like. Is there not a sliver of doubt anywhere in this administration that it is possible that the reverse took place in this case, that because of the evidence of known weapons programs in Iraq that everyone agrees to in the 1990s, anthrax and the like, that when they saw things happening later, that people connected dots that necessarily maybe should not have been connected, based on suspicions, not facts? MR. FLEISCHER: I think based on what was known and shown and proved by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction which they did, indeed, use, based on what was known about Saddam Hussein's pursuit of these weapons, and based on the findings of the United Nations inspectors, based on the findings of the intelligence community throughout the '90s and into the early part of this President's administration, leading right up to the war, the conclusions were reached because they were the conclusions based on the best intelligence. And the President is confident in them. The Congress was confident in them. I would suggest to you, go back and read any number of speeches given by members of Congress, Democrat and Republican alike, in 1998, when the Congress passed -- and wisely passed -- the regime change act for Iraq, and you'll find floor speech after floor speech that talks about Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Members of Congress said it with certainty then; the previous administration said it with certainty then. And unless somebody thinks, again, that Saddam Hussein threw out the weapons inspectors and after he threw out the weapons inspectors he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction and didn't tell anybody, and had no proof that he got rid of his weapons of mass destruction -- that's why the intelligence community continues to believe as strongly as it has and does that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, have weapons of mass destruction leading up to the war. Q But you don't rule out that some of it, some of what the intelligence community says might not be exactly right? We go through this every time the threat level goes from yellow to orange, that there is stuff out there -- MR. FLEISCHER: No, but there's a fundamental conclusion that has been reached and that doesn't change. Q Ari, a quick two-part question. You said there will come a time when the President engages in political activities. How will we know when that happens? (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: You're not trying to lead me somewhere with that type of question, are you? Q Never, Ari. MR. FLEISCHER: Very judicious of you. Q Will you be landing somewhere? (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: I hope you enjoyed it. (Laughter.) Your network surely did. You know, there will come a time when the President will, as events get closer to an election, to Election Day, the President will engage in more overt campaigning. That time is not here. I think the American people typically think campaigns go on too long, and the President tends to agree with that. Nevertheless, the President will prepare for the campaign -- after all, next year does end in an even number. Q And also in the last, 2000 and coming up, the President will accept federal funds in the general election. MR. FLEISCHER: Correct. Q Is there any dash of hypocrisy in that he doesn't contribute to that fund when he files his tax returns? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, interestingly, we talked before about taxpayer-financed elections, and while for the congressional races, Senate races and House races, and for overwhelming majority of the funds that go to presidential races is voluntary, there is that check on the tax reforms. And the best I remember this from IRS data is something like only 12 percent, or down to 8 percent of the American people check that box. So I think the President is in pretty good company with a number of American people who do not check that box. Q Why would he take the money, then? MR. FLEISCHER: As you know, he's not taking the money for the primary campaign; he will take it for the general. Q Does he prefer a privately-financed system altogether? MR. FLEISCHER: I think he signed into law the system that he supports. Q The amount of money the President is trying to raise, as everyone has noted, is an enormous amount of money. You seem to be suggesting that the President views this as an arsenal that he can dip into in order to fight back against Democratic claims that he's doing one thing or another. Is that sort of the way you see it? MR. FLEISCHER: I think there is a certain obviousness in our political system, in our democracy, that when candidates run for office they raise money. And the President will begin raising money tonight to help him prepare for a year that ends in an even number. Q But he's going to extraordinary lengths. I mean -- MR. FLEISCHER: Not really. He's holding fundraisers. Q Right. But he's going to raise more money than anyone has ever raised, twice what he raised last time, which itself was a record. I mean, doesn't -- MR. FLEISCHER: I don't think that's an indication of the lengths to which the President is going. I think it's an indication about the lengths of -- the breadth of support that he has from the American people. After all, an incumbent, or even a challenger cannot raise money if the person does not have the support from the public. And the President has broad support from the public; otherwise he would not be successful in this endeavor. Q Right. But we were talking more about the amount of money he's going to raise. And even when he was a challenger he raised a huge amount of money. I mean, I'm just trying to get a sense from you of why the President thinks it's necessary to raise as much as he hopes to raise. MR. FLEISCHER: Again, there are nine Democrats who spend all of their time saying negative things about the President. And that means there is a large resonation, a large reinforcement of a negative message that's coming at the President. The President is a competitor and he will prepare for what he needs to do in a reelection. Q Okay. One other thing, if I may, on a different topic. David Kay has been appointed special advisor to Tenet, as you've noted here. There was one s tory that suggested that the White House had sort of dumped the whole responsibility for finding weapons of mass destruction on to the CIA and put it in charge of the effort to find weapons in Iraq. MR. FLEISCHER: Well, it's the CIA and the DOD doing it together. If you can imagine a country as large as Iraq -- which, as you know, is the size of California -- it requires a tremendous number of people to help move with the logistics, to get people into place, to carry out their work. Iraq remains a place with great danger in many places, and so there has to be security provided for some of the experts to travel around. So it's a combination, it's a combined effort of the CIA and the DOD. Q And who is in charge of that effort? MR. FLEISCHER: It's a combined effort. So it's the two of them. I think when it comes to intelligence information, the CIA is the keeper of the intelligence information. When it comes to much of the logistics and to the assistance and to the moving around, DOD, of course, can help provide that. Q Ari, when you said earlier that Saddam must have had weapons of mass destruction because he had them and we don't have receipts for their destruction, and so forth, are you indicating that we went to war basically on an inference that he had to have them, or was there specific, credible evidence -- MR. FLEISCHER: This was asked before. It is based on intelligence information that led to the conclusion of this administration, the previous administration and many on the Hill that Saddam Hussein did indeed have weapons of mass destruction, of course. Q So there was enough specific, credible information of the existence of weapons, not any inference, but of the actual existence of weapons, there was enough of that to lead us to go to war? MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you an example -- Q Can you answer that question before you -- MR. FLEISCHER: -- Saddam having weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's militaristic history in which he had used weapons of mass destruction against others -- Q I'm not asking about history. I'm specifically not asking about history. I'm asking about what we saw on the ground just before the war, did we know that those weapons were there. MR. FLEISCHER: You cannot separate the two. You cannot separate history -- Q So you're saying that we did not have enough of that. MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying it's a combination; that the decision to go to war was based on the knowledge that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein had a history of using weapons of mass destruction, that he had a militaristic history; and that we successfully carried out a war, and did so in a way that Saddam Hussein was not able to use his weapons of mass destruction, that he may have had some of it destroyed, that he had it hidden, as part of a whole apparatus of concealment that he mastered over the years as he dealt with United Nations inspectors. Q On the credible evidence that we did know about, whatever amount of that there was, I assume that our intelligence capabilities before the war are the same as they were -- as they are now. So how it is possible that we were able to discern those weapons before the war, but we can't when we have 200,000 troops on the ground? MR. FLEISCHER: Let me give you a good example. These are the biological trucks that Secretary Powell spoke of at the United Nations. When Secretary Powell spoke about those, he couldn't tell anybody exactly where they were, but we had intelligence information that he had them. Now, the inability to say exactly where they are does not disprove the fact that he has them. And of course, as time went along, Secretary Powell was proven exactly right and the intelligence community was proven exactly right about what they said on these trucks. The President has said before that he is patient, the American people are patient and he is confident that in time we will find this. Q Several questions on fundraising. First of all, why is it that the President checks the "no" box? Does he have a philosophical rejection, or what's his reason for doing that? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the President views campaign funding as a voluntary matter, as the American people do, where people want to support the candidate of their choice. We have on the presidential level a somewhat mixed system where there is some level of taxpayer support. And the President, as you know, in the primary is not going to accept any taxpayer support, he will raise funds privately -- which means he will get support as the American people see fit to give it. Q But why does he -- why does he check the "no" box? MR. FLEISCHER: Because I think the President's approach is that from him, personally, that he believes in personally financing the causes in which he believes. Q But he does accept public funding for the general election. MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. Q Yet he is not contributing to it by checking that box. Isn't there a disconnect? MR. FLEISCHER: That's the way our system works. If he contributed to it, he'd have three more dollars. Q But you won't answer the question why -- MR. FLEISCHER: I think I just did. Q The President has a fairly brisk fundraising schedule over the next few weeks. Does he want to get all of this, or most of this done before the first of the year? Is that the timetable that he set forth on fundraising? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think just as always in our system, the President will follow the law and raise funds over a period of time, as the campaign determines, and that will continue throughout this year and into next year. Q And into next year? MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly. Q One last question. David was asking you about when he might start TV advertising, your answer was to the effect that he intends next year to rebuff the Democratic arguments against him. Does that imply that he won't start advertising -- MR. FLEISCHER: My answer was that it's too soon to say, it's too soon to indicate. David very cleverly tried to pin me down to a more specific timetable, and I just indicated it's too soon to say. Q Well, your words were, though, he intends next year to rebut those arguments. Does that indicate that you won't begin to put up TV spots this year? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm saying it's too soon for us to even begin any discussion about when any type of paid media campaign may or may not begin. Q Ari, one of the great personal and political strengths that the President's polls show is that he's trusted by the American people. Is he concerned that the longer this weapons of mass destruction issue goes on that it's going to erode that trust? MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think the American people have faith and confidence in the statements that the President made. And the American people, after all, have heard these very same statements for some 10 years now from elected officials, from members of Congress, from the previous administration. So I think, again, this is not new to the American people and the American people understand that Saddam Hussein had a very, very detailed program of concealment that he mastered in order to hide his weapons of mass destruction from the inspectors. And again I remind you that in the early to mid-'90s, were it not for the defectors, the United Nations inspectors never would have even known about the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein did, indeed, possess and was proved to have possessed at that time. It's the nature of concealment, and Saddam Hussein was a master of it. Q Isn't there a point, though, where the longer this goes on, the more erosion there might be? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, again, you'll be able to make those judgments over time. Q If I could follow up on Jim's question. I think the article that he was citing also suggested that Director Tenet is a potential fall guy if it turns out that there -- you know, if WMD doesn't pop up. Can you tell us about that? Is that, in fact, the case? Is the Director of the CIA -- MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the President has every confidence that the intelligence that he received was accurate intelligence and that weapons of mass destruction will, indeed, be found. The President has full faith in Director Tenet. And the President is focused on pursuing the reconstruction of Iraq. We have the team that's on the ground now that is working on the finding of the weapons of mass destruction. Q Is there one person that is responsible for rounding up the WMD? This article did suggest that the onus has put on at least CIA at this point. MR. FLEISCHER: It's a joint effort, just as I said. Q One more unrelated follow-up to Tom -- thank you very much. (Laughter.) MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a minute, I didn't answer you yet. Q The President said he's behind the tax credit, there's no -- for low-income folks, there's no question about that. However, it's been a few weeks since that position was first announced from this podium. Is it getting closer to a time where the President may have to suggest to members of his own party that this is a good thing -- MR. FLEISCHER: The House of Representatives just took its action last week, and now the conference between the House and the Senate will begin. This is the pace the Congress follows. But the President's message to the Congress is unequivocal. The President wants to sign the child credit into law. He thinks it's the appropriate thing to do for low-income families. He wants the House and the Senate to quickly reconcile their differences so that it can, indeed, be signed into law. Q Ari, two questions. First, can you comment on reports that Condi Rice will be going to the Middle East? MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not going to engage a speculation about any potential travel. If we have travel from the National Security Advisor, we'll keep you posted, but I'm not going to speculate. Q Secondly, on fundraising. Governor Dean has said that it's a threat to democracy for any one presidential candidate to have two or three times more money to get his or her message out than any other candidate. Regardless of how much money the President plans to raise, does he see any merit whatsoever in that argument? MR. FLEISCHER: Well again, I think the amount of money that candidates raise in our democracy is a reflection of the amount of support they have around the country. So the President is proud to have the support of the American people, and the American people will ultimately be the ones who decide how much funding goes to any Democrat or any Republican. Q How can that really be reflective of his support, though, considering he's getting money from people who can afford to go to dinner for $2,000? I mean, most Americans cannot afford that. So how can that really be reflective of his support from middle America? MR. FLEISCHER: The rules are equal. The rules are the same for both parties, for the Democrats and the Republicans. Both parties compete knowing that. They, of course, raise money from all groups of Americans, including many low-dollar donors. And, again, the American people decide how much support to give either candidate in either party. Q It's also known, Ari, that the labor union members overwhelmingly support Democrats, or have in previous elections. So how can that really, you know -- that doesn't really support your argument. MR. FLEISCHER: I'm not sure of your point, Heidi. Q I mean, Gore was endorsed by most of the labor -- you know, major labor unions. MR. FLEISCHER: Right. So the American people have spoken because one segment of our society has spoken? I stand by what I've said about the American people, broadly. Q Ari, the federal appeals court ruling on detainees, allowing the administration to continue not to publicly identify these detainees -- why was it necessary not to identify these folks who were rounded up after September 11th? MR. FLEISCHER: This is a matter the Department of Justice works on in a way that makes certain that we -- they are protective of the national security needs of our country, while making certain that it's all done within the Constitution. And that's what the courts have found today. Q I understand the argument, but why is just publishing their names such a threat to national security? MR. FLEISCHER: When it comes to the legal matters of how cases are prosecuted in a court or the procedures by which detainments are followed, the Department of Justice is your source on that. The Department of Justice may have more to indicate on that. I'd note today the Department of Justice is also announcing today the follow-up to the President's announcement in the State of the Union from two years ago about policies dealing with banning racial profiling. The Department of Justice has an important announcement that they are making today about the follow-up to that, where they are taking action now to make certain that racial profiling is not allowed by our federal law enforcement agencies. And the President is very pleased to hear the Department of Justice taking that action today. Q Ari, you said several times today, the President is still confident that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But last week the President made a distinction, and said that he was confident evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program -- MR. FLEISCHER: Right. And I was asked about that when the President said that, and I indicated to the press that very day that the President uses the two interchangeably. When he says, weapons program, he means also, weapons of mass destruction. Q And can you give us an update on Ambassador Wolf's activities in the Mideast? MR. FLEISCHER: Ambassador Wolf is on the ground in the Middle East. He's already had a series of meetings with officials there. And there are a series of talks that are underway in the Middle East. There are talks between Palestinians and the Palestinians -- different entities within the Palestinian community -- including the terrorist organization Hamas. The Ambassador is in contact with Israeli officials; he's in contact with Palestinian officials. And the reason he is there and the reasons that Secretary Powell and Dr. Rice met yesterday with the Israeli chief of staff -- the chief of staff to the Israeli Prime Minister -- was because of the President's strong message, which he continues to repeat, about the need for the parties to adhere to the road map to follow the vision toward peace. There's a lot of work underway behind the scenes in these meetings that I just described, trying to help achieve the return of the peace process laid out in the road map. Q Thank you. Two questions, Iran and Saudi Arabia. First on Iran. How much support is the U.S. willing to give the students -- the dissenting students who are actually putting their lives at risk in their protests? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we're alarmed about the reports of the arrests and the provocations that the Iranian regime has taken against the protesters. The protesters are expressing their peaceful voices. They're expressing their yearning to have a government that is representative and a government that is tolerant. And as the President said in his July 12th statement, which is his definitive statement of policy of United States' approach to Iran, we believe in the voices of these Iranians and we hope the day will come when the Iranians have a government that allows reform to take place. Q Will the U.S. intervene to protect them in any way? MR. FLEISCHER: No, our message is the voice of support that you have heard for the Iranian students. Q Also, on Saudi Arabia. There's been quite a bit of publicity today on the Saudis' alleged support of terrorist groups, and also on the issue of divided families, American families hold up in the embassy, and so forth, trying to get their half-Saudi children out of the country. Any comments on those two issues? MR. FLEISCHER: No. On the second one, that's a State Department matter that is a specific matter. Family by family, they review these cases. It's not only in Saudi Arabia where you have heartrending cases about family disputes that involve the laws of another country and the laws of the United States. That happens around the world. And that's why the State Department has consular offices and diplomats stationed around the world, to help each family deal with the specifics of their individual case with each foreign country. Q Saudi support of terrorists? MR. FLEISCHER: Saudi Arabia, as the President has said, is a good ally of the United States in the war against terror. And certainly Saudi Arabia, even before, but especially since the bombing in Riyadh, has stepped up its activities to fight terror. Q Senator Patrick Leahy sent the President a list of names of candidates that he finds acceptable to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. What is the President's response to the Senator, who is stepping outside the Senate's traditional advise and consent role? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, number one, there are no vacancies on the Supreme Court. Number two, in the event a vacancy were to occur at some point in the future, the President will follow the Constitution. And the Constitution says that the President shall nominate, and the Senate shall participate through advice and consent. Q Ari, on page one of this morning's Washington Times, you are quoted as disagreeing with the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in saying, "The President's message is that the best security comes from the Israelis and Palestinians working together to fight terror." And my question is, can you name even one Palestinian organization or individual who has ever expressed realistic willingness to join Israel in fighting Hamas or any of the many other Palestinian terrorist organizations? MR. FLEISCHER: This is why what took place in Jordan was so important, because previously, with Yasser Arafat in charge of the Palestinian Authority, the answer was hard to find. Now there is a new moment of opportunity both for the Israelis and for the Palestinian people, with Prime Minister Abbas and with his Security Minister Dahlan in charge -- Mohammed Dahlan, in charge of fighting terror. And the President does believe in the statements that he received from Prime Minister Abbas about his dedication to finding a peaceful solution, and to fighting terror. And, very importantly, the Arab nations are also participating in helping Prime Minister Abbas and Minister Dahlan to be successful on their fight against the terrorist elements. Q Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean, who won the Wisconsin state Democratic convention poll decisively, over Senator Kerry and the others, has said, regarding the location of Saddam's WMDs, "How much did the President know, and when did he know it?" And my question is, in view of the statements last year in which Senators Kerry, Liebermann, and Graham, as well as Congressman Gephardt, all affirmed that Saddam had WMDs, doesn't the President believe this Dean smear is more directed at Dean's rival Democrats than at the President? MR. FLEISCHER: I think -- the fact of the matter is there is a terrible split in the Democratic Party and among its presidential candidates about whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Q So he's going after the Democrats rather than the President, isn't he? MR. FLEISCHER: Many who have the most experience have said that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction, indeed. Thank you. The White House, Press Briefing With Ari Fleischer ________________________________ 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.) =============================================== 6:07:26 PM

Re: An Earlier Patriot Act Brought Down a President Dear Friends: Thom Hartmann reminds us that every dark cloud does indeed have a silver lining. Earlier in America's history, the Alien and Sedition Acts empowered President John Adams to have his "unpatriotic" opponents arrested, and specified that only Federalist judges on the Supreme Court would be both judges and jurors. These forerunners of the Patriot Act reflected the new attitude Adams brought to Washington D.C. in 1796--a  type of politics in which no opposition was tolerated. Thomas Jefferson beat Adams in the election of 1800 as a wave of voter revulsion over Adams' phony and self-serving "patriotism" swept over the nation (along with concerns about Adams' belligerent war rhetoric against the French). Today, even a minor appearance by Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich--both on record for repealing much or all of the Patriot Act--draws a large crowd. There's a growing conviction across the nation that Dean--or possibly another non-DLC Democrat--can defeat Bush in 2004. The future of our nation is now at risk just as much as it was in 1800: It's time to wake up and work to elect and empower politicians interested in real democracy. If we're successful, America may experience a revival every bit as extraordinary as that brought about by Jefferson's Second American Revolution. ________________________________ Common Dreams June 16, 2003 How An Earlier "Patriot Act" Law Brought Down A President  by Thom Hartmann   Many Americans are suggesting that the Patriot Act (and its proposed "improvements" in Patriot II) is totally new in the experience of America and may spell the end of both democracy and the Bill of Rights. History, however, shows another view, which offers us both warnings and hope. Although you won't learn much about it from reading the "Republican histories" of the Founders being published and promoted in the corporate media these days, the most notorious stain on the presidency of John Adams began in 1798 with the passage of a series of laws startlingly similar to the Patriot Act. It started when Benjamin Franklin Bache, grandson of Benjamin Franklin and editor of the Philadelphia newspaper the Aurora, began to speak out against the policies of then-President John Adams. Bache supported Vice President Thomas Jefferson's Democratic-Republican Party (today called the Democratic Party) when John Adams led the conservative Federalists (who today would be philosophically identical to GOP Republicans). Bache attacked Adams in an op-ed piece by calling the president "old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams." To be sure, Bache wasn't the only one attacking Adams in 1798. His Aurora was one of about 20 independent newspapers aligned with Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans, and many were openly questioning Adams' policies and ridiculing Adams' fondness for formality and grandeur. On the Federalist side, conservative newspaper editors were equally outspoken. Noah Webster wrote that Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans were "the refuse, the sweepings of the most depraved part of mankind from the most corrupt nations on earth." Another Federalist characterized the Democratic-Republicans as "democrats, momocrats and all other kinds of rats," while Federalist newspapers worked hard to turn the rumor of Jefferson's relationship with his deceased wife's half-sister, slave Sally Hemmings, into a full-blown scandal. But while Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans had learned to develop a thick skin, University of Missouri-Rolla history professor Larry Gragg points out in an October 1998 article in American History magazine that Bache's writings sent Adams and his wife into a self-righteous frenzy. Abigail wrote to her husband and others that Benjamin Franklin Bache was expressing the "malice" of a man possessed by Satan. The Democratic-Republican newspaper editors were engaging, she said, in "abuse, deception, and falsehood," and Bache was a "lying wretch." Abigail insisted that her husband and Congress must act to punish Bache for his "most insolent and abusive" words about her husband and his administration. His "wicked and base, violent and calumniating abuse" must be stopped, she demanded. Abigail Adams followed the logic employed by modern-day "conservatives" who call the administration "the government" and say that those opposed to an administration's policies are "unpatriotic," by writing that Bache's "abuse" being "leveled against the Government" of the United States (her husband) could even plunge the nation into a "civil war." Worked into a frenzy by Abigail Adams' and Federalist newspapers of the day, Federalist senators and congressmen - who controlled both legislative houses along with the presidency - came to the defense of John Adams by passing a series of four laws that came to be known together as the Alien and Sedition Acts. The vote was so narrow - 44 to 41 in the House of Representatives - that in order to ensure passage the lawmakers wrote a sunset provision into its most odious parts: Those laws, unless renewed, would expire the last day of John Adams' first term of office, March 3, 1801. Empowered with this early version of the Patriot Act, President John Adams ordered his "unpatriotic" opponents arrested, and specified that only Federalist judges on the Supreme Court would be both judges and jurors. Bache, often referred to as "Lightning Rod Junior" after his famous grandfather, was the first to be hauled into jail (before the laws even became effective!), followed by New York Time Piece editor John Daly Burk, which put his paper out of business. Bache died of yellow fever while awaiting trial, and Burk accepted deportation to avoid imprisonment and then fled. Others didn't avoid prison so easily. Editors of seventeen of the twenty or so Democratic-Republican-affiliated newspapers were arrested, and ten were convicted and imprisoned; many of their newspapers went out of business. Bache's successor, William Duane (who both took over the newspaper and married Bache's widow), continued the attacks on Adams, publishing in the June 24, 1799 issue of the Aurora a private letter John Adams had written to Tench Coxe in which then-Vice President Adams admitted that there were still men influenced by Great Britain in the U.S. government. The letter cast Adams in an embarrassing light, as it implied that Adams himself may still have British loyalties (something suspected by many, ever since his pre-revolutionary defense of British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre), and made the quick-tempered Adams furious. Imprisoning his opponents in the press was only the beginning for Adams, though. Knowing Jefferson would mount a challenge to his presidency in 1800, he and the Federalists hatched a plot to pass secret legislation that would have disputed presidential elections decided "in secret" and "behind closed doors." Duane got evidence of the plot, and published it just after having published the letter that so infuriated Adams. It was altogether too much for the president who didn't want to let go of his power: Adams had Duane arrested and hauled before Congress on Sedition Act charges. Duane would have stayed in jail had not Thomas Jefferson intervened, letting Duane leave to "consult his attorney." Duane went into hiding until the end of the Adams' presidency. Emboldened, the Federalists reached out beyond just newspaper editors. When Congress let out in July of 1798, John and Abigail Adams made the trip home to Braintree, Massachusetts in their customary fashion - in fancy carriages as part of a parade, with each city they passed through firing cannons and ringing church bells. (The Federalists were, after all, as Jefferson said, the party of "the rich and the well born." Although Adams wasn't one of the super-rich, he basked in their approval and adopted royal-like trappings, later discarded by Jefferson.) As the Adams family entourage, full of pomp and ceremony, passed through Newark, New Jersey, a man named Luther Baldwin was sitting in a tavern and probably quite unaware that he was about to make a fateful comment that would help change history. As Adams rode by, soldiers manning the Newark cannons loudly shouted the Adams-mandated chant, "Behold the chief who now commands!" and fired their salutes. Hearing the cannon fire as Adams drove by outside the bar, in a moment of drunken candor Luther Baldwin said, "There goes the President and they are firing at his arse." Baldwin further compounded his sin by adding that, "I do not care if they fire thro' his arse!" The tavern's owner, a Federalist named John Burnet, overheard the remark and turned Baldwin in to Adams' thought police: The hapless drunk was arrested, convicted, and imprisoned for uttering "seditious words tending to defame the President and Government of the United States." The Alien and Sedition Acts reflected the new attitude Adams and his wife had brought to Washington D.C. in 1796, a take-no-prisoners type of politics in which no opposition was tolerated. For example, on January 30, 1798, Vermont's Congressman Matthew Lyon spoke out on the floor of the House against "the malign influence of Connecticut politicians." Charging that Adams' and the Federalists only served the interests of the rich and had "acted in opposition to the interests and opinions of nine-tenths of their constituents," Lyon infuriated the Federalists. The situation simmered for two weeks, and on the morning of February 15, 1798, Federalist anger reached a boiling point when conservative Connecticut Congressman Roger Griswold attacked Lyon on the House floor with a hickory cane. As Congressman George Thatcher wrote in a letter now held at the Massachusetts Historical Society, "Mr. Griswald [sic] [was] laying on blows with all his might upon Mr. Lyon.. Griswald.continued his blows on the head, shoulder, & arms of Lyon, [who was] protecting his head & face as well as he could. Griswald tripped Lyon & threw him on the floor & gave him one or two [more] blows in the face." In sharp contrast to his predecessor George Washington, America's second president had succeeded in creating an atmosphere of fear and division in the new republic, and it brought out the worst in his conservative supporters. Across the new nation, Federalist mobs and Federalist-controlled police and militia attacked Democratic-Republican newspapers and shouted down or threatened individuals who dared speak out in public against John Adams. Even members of Congress were not legally immune from the long arm of Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts. When Congressman Lyon - already hated by the Federalists for his opposition to the law, and recently caned in Congress by Federalist Roger Griswold - wrote an article pointing out Adams' "continual grasp for power" and suggesting that Adams had an "unbounded thirst for ridiculous pomp, foolish adulation, and selfish avarice," Federalists convened a federal grand jury and indicted Congressman Lyon for bringing "the President and government of the United States into contempt." Lyon, who had served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was led through the town of Vergennes, Vermont in shackles. He ran for re-election from his 12x16-foot Vergennes jail cell and handily won his seat. "It is quite a new kind of jargon," Lyon wrote from jail to his constituents, "to call a Representative of the People an Opposer of the Government because he does not, as a legislator, advocate and acquiesce in every proposition that comes from the Executive." Which brings us to today. The possible ray of light for those who oppose the attempts of George W. Bush to emulate John Adams is found in the end of the story of Adams' attempt to suborn the Bill of Rights and turn the United States into a one-party state: * The Alien and Sedition Acts caused the Democratic-Republican newspapers to become more popular than ever, and turned the inebriated Luther Baldwin into a national celebrity. In like fashion, progressive websites and talk shows are today proliferating across the internet, and victims of no-fly laws and illegal arrests at anti-Bush rallies are often featured on the web and on radio programs like Democracy Now. * The day Adams signed the Acts, Thomas Jefferson left town in protest. Even though Jefferson was Vice President, and could theoretically benefit from using the Acts against his own political enemies, he and James Madison continued to protest and work against them. Jefferson wrote the text for a non-binding resolution against the Acts that was adopted by the Kentucky legislature, and James Madison wrote one for Virginia that was adopted by that legislature. Today, in similar fashion, over 100 communities across America have adopted resolutions against Bush's Patriot Act, and, in the spirit of Matthew Lyon, Vermont Congressman Bernie Sanders has introduced legislation to repeal parts of the Act. * Jefferson beat Adams in the election of 1800 as a wave of voter revulsion over Adams' phony and self-serving "patriotism" swept over the nation (along with concerns about Adams' belligerent war rhetoric against the French). Today, even a minor appearance by Howard Dean or Dennis Kucinich - both on record for repealing much or all of the Patriot Act - draws a large crowd. There's a growing conviction across the nation that Dean - or possibly another non-DLC Democrat - can defeat Bush in 2004. * When Jefferson exposed Adams as a poseur and tool of the powerful elite, the rot within Adams' Federalist Party was exposed along with it. The Federalists lost their hold on Congress in the election of 1800, and began a 30-year slide into total disintegration (later to be reincarnated as Whigs and then as Republicans). Today, as the Tom Delay and Roy Blount bribery scandals widen, tax cuts for the rich are understood for what they are, and the corporate takeover of America is alarming average citizens, the rot in the Republican Party is more and more obvious. Americans are demanding representation for We, The People, and non-DLC Democrats, Greens, and Progressives can offer it. * In what came to be known as "The Revolution of 1800" or "The Second American Revolution," Thomas Jefferson freed all the men imprisoned by Adams as one of his first acts of office. Jefferson even reimbursed the fines they'd paid - with interest - and granted them a formal pardon and apology. Today, undoing the Patriot Act and kicking corporate money out of Washington D.C. have become popular progressive and Democratic campaign themes. The history of John Adams' failed presidency gives hope and encouragement to those committed to real democracy and genuine freedom. History shows that when enough people become politically active, they can rescue the soul of America from sliding into a corrupt, abusive police state. The future of our nation is now at risk just as much as it was in 1800: It's time to wake up and work to elect and empower politicians interested in real democracy. If we're successful, America may experience a revival every bit as extraordinary as that brought about by Jefferson's Second American Revolution. --Thom Hartmann (thom at thomhartmann.com) is the author of over a dozen books, including "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights" and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight," and the host of a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show. www.thomhartmann.com This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print, email, blog, or web media so long as this credit is attached. © Copyrighted 1997-2003 www.commondreams.org ___________________________________________________________   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.) ============================================================ 6:06:39 PM

Re: Will Republicans Block Inquiry? Dear Friends: Will congressional Republicans block an inquiry into Bush's misdeeds? A group of House members led by Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) are preparing to submit a resolution of inquiry to the International Relations Committee. The inquiry will request documents in the President's possession that provide evidence to support his administration's claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. This resolution is the equivalent of a subpoena to the president by Congress. It requires a majority vote both in the committee and on the House floor. The Republican majority is expected to quash the resolution, but this resolution will force them to go on the record as aiding and abetting Bush's version of the truth. ___________________________ The Village Voice June 18-14, 2003 issue Mondo Washington by James Ridgeway Whimper of Mass Destruction What Didn't They Know? When Didn't They Know It? A group of some 36 backbenchers in the House of Representatives is getting set to force the Republican leadership to take a stand on the continuing controversy over whether weapons of mass destruction exist in Iraq. The House members, led by Democratic presidential long shot Dennis Kucinich, will submit "a resolution of inquiry" to the International Relations Committee, requesting that Bush turn over within 14 days "documents or other materials in the President's possession that provide specific evidence" in 10 instances where Bush, VP Cheney, or Defense Secretary Rumsfeld claimed that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These include Cheney's August 2002 assertion that "there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction"-a claim that was reiterated by Bush in September at the UN and in October at a speech in Cincinnati, along with further claims by Cheney and Rumsfeld. The latter said on March 24, with much assurance, "We have seen intelligence over many months that they have chemical and biological weapons, and that they have dispersed them and that they're weaponized and that, in one case at least, the command and control arrangements have been established." The resolution amounts to a subpoena to the president by Congress. An arcane feature of the House rules, it has been used infrequently, once in 1980 in an attempt to elicit facts relating to President Jimmy Carter's brother Billy and his dealings with the Bolivian government, and once under Clinton in connection with the White House travel-office scandal. It seeks facts and nothing else. A majority vote by the committee would put the resolution on the House floor. Either in the panel or on the floor, the GOP leadership will without doubt move to quash it. In doing so, the Democrats reason, the Republican leadership will not only be carrying forward the White House cover-up, but will be putting itself on record in backing the cover-up, a step that conceivably could have repercussions in next year's elections. There are 36 co-sponsors, including seven New York members, led by Charlie Rangel and including Maurice Hinchey, Major Owens, Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler, and Edolphus Towns. --Additional reporting: Phoebe St John and Joanna Khenkine Copyright © 2003 Village Voice Media, Inc., 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003 The Village Voice and Voice are registered trademarks. All rights reserved. _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 6:06:12 PM

Re: Kerry Accuses Bush of Misleading US Dear Friends: John Kerry, the leading Democratic presidential contender, has accused Bush of misleading the country when he took the US into its war on Iraq, and gives this as the reason for entering the race himself.  Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran who later became a strong opponent of that war. On Iraq, he has been somewhere in the middle. He supported the congressional resolution last autumn giving Bush the right to use force against Saddam Hussein, yet has been a strong critic of how the president went about the job. Kerry is known for calling for regime change in Washington, as well as in Baghdad, and is now pushing for a congressional investigation into US intelligence on Iraq. ________________________ The Independent (UK) June 20, 2003 Bush 'Misled Every One of Us', Says Rival for White House by Rupert Cornwell in Washington The leading Democratic presidential contender John Kerry has brought the Iraqi weapons controversy to the forefront of the White House race, accusing George Bush of "misleading every one of us" when he took the US to war against Saddam Hussein. Senator Kerry said the President made the case for war based on at least two faulty intelligence findings - that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger, and that the Baghdad regime had drones able to mount biological attacks on the US. Mr Kerry, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire, said Mr Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Saddam and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. "He misled every one of us," the Massachusetts Senator said. "That's one reason why I'm running to be President of the United States." Despite Mr Kerry's robust language, it remains to be seen whether his broadside will ignite a political debate on Iraq's missing weapons. The debate in the United States has been relatively low key compared with the controversy in Britain, despite the post-conflict turmoil which has seen several American soldiers killed by Iraqis. One reason that Mr Bush has had an easier ride than Tony Blair is the continuing public support for the war. The divisions among the nine Democrats seeking to win his job in 2004 have also helped. Three of the main candidates, Senator Joe Lieberman, Senator John Edwards and the former House minority leader Dick Gephardt, have strongly backed the war. Two other candidates, the former Vermont governor Howard Dean and Senator Bob Graham, have sharply questioned pre-war intelligence and the use made of it by the Bush administration. But none of them has the stature on security issues of Mr Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who later became a vehement opponent of that war. On Iraq, he has been somewhere in the middle. He supported the congressional resolution last autumn giving Mr Bush the right to use force against Saddam, yet has been a strong critic of how the President went about the job. But he has not always judged the mood right, running into a storm of criticism on the eve of the war when he suggested that there was a need for regime change in Washington as well as Baghdad. He is on safer ground now, with his call for a full-scale investigation on Capitol Hill. Mr Kerry said that it was too early to conclude whether or not war with Iraq was justified. But a congressional investigation into US intelligence on Iraq was essential. He said: "I will not let him off the hook throughout this campaign with respect to America's credibility and credibility to me, because if he lied, he lied to me personally." He said that it was not clear whether Mr Bush acted on poor, distorted or politicised intelligence. "I don't have the answer," Mr Kerry said. "I want the answer and the American people deserve the answer. I will get to the bottom of this." © 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.) =========================== 6:05:48 PM

Re: Indefensible Secrecy Dear Friends: The Washington Post editorial condemns the recent ruling by the US Circuit Court of Appeals affirming that information concerning those detained during the September 11 investigation can be withheld by the government under the Freedom of Information Act. This decision sets an ugly precedent--the government need only claim "national security", and the courts will roll over. The Post calls for the full appeals court or the Supreme Court to make it clear that the law in this country does not permit intrusive government actions without accountability. ______________________________ Washington Post June 18, 2003 Indefensible Secrecy Editorial THE U.S. COURT of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit handed down a dreadful decision yesterday affirming the government's authority to keep secret basic information concerning the hundreds of people detained during the Sept. 11 investigation -- information such as their names, dates of arrest and release and the names of their lawyers. The government has publicly tallied the number of people detained on immigration charges, few of whom remain in custody. Others it has charged criminally, and it has detained an unknown number of people as material witnesses. But to this day, even in the face of allegations of abuse, the public lacks any comprehensive sense of who was arrested and how they were treated. When a coalition of civil liberties and other groups sued under the Freedom of Information Act for better information, supported in a friend of the court brief by The Washington Post Co. and other media organizations, a district court judge ordered disclosure of the names of the detainees and their attorneys. Now the court of appeals has reversed in a 2 to 1 decision that sets an ugly precedent: The government need only whisper the words "national security," the court says in effect, and the courts will roll over. The government argues that making information about detainees public could give al Qaeda a road map to the investigation and expose potential witnesses to intimidation. Such concerns may justify shielding some information, but they can't justify blanket secrecy, for not even the government contends that every detainee has connections to terrorism or information about it. Yet Judge David B. Sentelle, writing for himself and Judge Karen L. Henderson, finds an adequate basis for blacking out everything. The law exempts from disclosure law enforcement material that could reasonably be expected to compromise an investigation. In light of the deference courts owe the government in national security matters, Judge Sentelle writes, it should not second-guess the government's claims. It is a mark of the decision's weakness that the majority does not even attempt a real response to Judge David S. Tatel's persuasive dissent. The purpose of the Freedom of Information Act, Judge Tatel writes, is disclosure, not secrecy, and the burden is on the government to establish that law enforcement material is exempt. While "the government's reasons for withholding some of the information may well be legitimate," he writes, its arguments are far too sweeping to establish that information about the detainees is categorically exempt. Why does it need to protect the names of innocent detainees who have no information to provide and from whose detention al Qaeda could learn nothing? And even as it worries that releasing information about detainees risks compromising its investigation, he notes, the government releases information about detainees when doing so suits its purposes. The court does not demand of the government a rational relationship between its genuine needs and the shield it requests. It simply accepts the government's "vague, poorly explained allegations, and by filling in the gaps in the government's case with its own assumptions . . . convert[s] deference into acquiescence." In writing the Freedom of Information Act, Congress expected judges to hold the executive branch's feet to the fire when it wishes to keep information under wraps. The act does not always require disclosure. But it becomes meaningless if the government can keep secret the names of hundreds of people it has rounded up without giving a detailed and specific explanation of the harm that a bit of sunshine would cause. The full appeals court or the Supreme Court should clarify that the law in this country does not permit intrusive government actions without accountability. © 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.) ===================================================== 6:05:21 PM

Re: Another Victory for Bush/Ashcroft Dear Friends: In a 2-1 ruling that represented a victory for President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, a panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that disclosing information could give terrorists dangerous insight into the government's Sept. 11 investigation. The court affirmed that such information can properly be withheld under an existing exemption in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. That provision exempts information if it's compiled for law enforcement purposes and if revealing it "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." When US Circuit Judge David Sentelle wrote "America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," he was correct. We do face a real enemy, and, to quote Walt Kelly's Pogo, we have met the enemy, and he is us. ________________________ USA Today June 18, 2003 Court: No Obligation to Name Detainees WASHINGTON (AP)--The government properly withheld names and other details about hundreds of foreigners who were detained in the months after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, deferring to administration warnings about continued threats from terrorists. In a 2-1 ruling that represented a victory for President Bush and Attorney General John Ashcroft, a panel from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia determined that disclosing information could give terrorists dangerous insight into the government's Sept. 11 investigation. Federal judges who are asked to compel such disclosures should defer to White House concerns that they might help the nation's enemies, the appeals panel said. "America faces an enemy just as real as its former Cold War foes, with capabilities beyond the capacity of the judiciary to explore," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David B. Sentelle. He said judges are "in an extremely poor position to second-guess the executive's judgment in this area of national security." Ashcroft called the ruling "a victory for the Justice Department's careful measures to safeguard sensitive information about our terrorism investigations." In a harsh dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge David S. Tatel accused his colleagues of "uncritical deference to the government's vague, poorly explained arguments for withholding broad categories of information about the detainees." Tatel, appointed by President Clinton in 1994, said the decision to withhold the information prevents U.S. citizens from learning whether the Bush administration "is violating the constitutional rights of the hundreds of persons whom it has detained in connection with its terrorism investigation." Sentelle, appointed in 1987 by President Reagan, and Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, appointed by Bush's father in 1990, ruled that the list of names could "constitute a comprehensive diagram of the law enforcement investigation." The decision was the latest in a string of legal victories in U.S. courts for the administration. The government has so far largely withstood challenges to its broad use of a powerful surveillance law, its closing of immigration hearings and its use of enemy combatant laws to prosecute U.S. citizens accused of ties to terrorists. The latest courtroom battle focused on information about at least 762 foreigners who were inside the United States illegally and were detained following the Sept. 11 terror attacks. More than 500 have been deported so far. A recent audit by the inspector general at the Justice Department found "significant problems" with the detentions, including allegations of physical abuse. Civil liberties groups have noted that only one of those detained, Zacarias Moussaoui, has been charged with any terrorism-related crime. Ashcroft told lawmakers this month that some of the foreigners "had strong links to the terrorists," but that in some cases evidence was insufficient or too sensitive to bring criminal charges. Ashcroft has publicly described one detainee as a roommate of one of the hijackers; another acknowledged training in a terrorist camp in Afghanistan; another traveled from New York on Sept. 11 with a pilot's license and flight materials; and another was found with 30 photographs of the World Trade Center and papers that Ashcroft described as "Jihad materials." The new appeals decision rejected arguments by the Center for National Security Studies and other public interest groups that the Justice Department should publicly provide the names of the detainees, names of their lawyers, dates they were picked up and the reasons they were detained. "We're disappointed that for the first time ever, a U.S. court has sanctioned secret arrests," said Kate Martin, a lawyer for the center. She said the organization plans to pursue the case. The court affirmed that the information can properly be withheld under an existing exemption in the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. That provision exempts information if it's compiled for law enforcement purposes and if revealing it "could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings." "It's disturbing that the court takes the position that the war on terrorism trumps all other considerations," said David B. Sobel of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, who also participated in the case. Said dissenting judge Tatel: "Just as the government has a compelling interest in ensuring citizens' safety, so do citizens have a compelling interest in ensuring that their government does not, in discharging its duties, abuse one of its most awesome powers, the power to arrest and jail." The appeals decision did not refer directly to the inspector general's findings critical of the detentions, although lawyers said they sent a copy of the audit report to the appeals court before Tuesday's ruling. U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the government last August to release detainees' names but delayed enforcing her order to let the government appeal. Kessler also had ruled that the Justice Department could withhold the other information. Tuesday's appeals decision, however, permits the Bush administration to withhold the names of the foreigners and their lawyers. Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.    © Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 6:04:24 PM

Re:  An Australian Hero Emerges Dear Friends: AP reports Andrew Wilkie, "a former Australian defence analyst who resigned in March claiming the government was exaggerating the Iraqi threat is to appear before British MPs investigating intelligence on Baghdad's weapons programmes... He quit in protest [after] Prime Minister John Howard ... backed US and British claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to the al-Qaida terror network [and] sent 2,000 Australian troops to the war that toppled the Iraqi regime. After resigning, Mr Wilkie argued that intelligence available to Australia suggested Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States and its allies. Wilkie told The Sydney Morning Herald he would expose the government's 'exaggeration' of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and 'concoction' of links between former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and terrorists in his appearance at the inquiry."  We applaud Mr. Wilkie's actions. An Australian hero emerges. __________________________ AP June 16, 2003     Australian Expert to Expose Iraqi Weapons 'Exaggeration' A former Australian defence analyst who resigned in March claiming the government was exaggerating the Iraqi threat is to appear before British MPs investigating intelligence on Baghdad's weapons programmes. Andrew Wilkie is a former army officer who worked at Australia's Office of National Assessments, which provides intelligence evaluations for the government in Canberra. He quit in protest over the case Prime Minister John Howard made to the public for going to war in Iraq without a United Nations mandate. Mr Howard backed US and British claims that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to the al-Qaida terror network. He sent 2,000 Australian troops to the war that toppled the Iraqi regime. After resigning, Mr Wilkie argued that intelligence available to Australia suggested Iraq did not pose a serious threat to the United States and its allies. He also claimed the war would only fuel terrorist fervour for more attacks on the West. Wilkie told The Sydney Morning Herald he would expose the government's "exaggeration" of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction and "concoction" of links between former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and terrorists in his appearance at the inquiry. "The claim was obviously false. There is no doubt that Iraq did have weapons at one time and something will eventually be found and dressed up as justification, but it won't be anything of the magnitude we were led to believe," Wilkie said. He was speaking at Sydney airport before flying to London to appear before the inquiry this week. Iraq's alleged nuclear programme and cache of chemical and biological weapons was the prime justification used by the US and its allies for going to war in Iraq. So far, troops investigating suspected weapons sites in Iraq have returned empty handed. © Associated Press Copyright © 2003 Ananova 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.) ============================================================ 6:03:51 PM

Re: WMD Lies Could be the New Watergate Dear Friends: More and more, journalists are asking if the falsehoods told about the weapons of mass destruction could turn into the new Watergate. This would truly be a consciousness-raising experience, and one that is long overdue. Just as in the times of Nixon, a president would be called upon to be governed by the law of the land and responsive to the people within that country. Just as in the times of Nixon, a president would be asked what did he know, and when? And perhaps, just as in the times of Nixon, a president would leave office, rightfully disgraced, in punishment for his crimes against America. ____________________________ The Village Voice June 18 - 24, 2003 issue Press Clips by Cynthia Cotts Reason to Deceive WMD Lies Could Be the New Watergate If media companies want to boost ratings and credibility at the same time, they should follow the lead of New York Times columnists Paul Krugman and Nicholas D. Kristof and make weapons of mass destruction the top story of the summer. Not only have President Bush and his administration exaggerated the evidence that Iraq had WMD, but now that news of their lies has leaked out, the pro-war camp is spinning like mad. The odds of exposing a major cover-up are looking very good indeed. Consider the momentum this story has picked up from the Times Op-Ed page in recent weeks. On May 30, Kristof reported that according to "a torrent" of sources, WMD intelligence was "deliberately warped . . . to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize [the war in Iraq]." On June 3, Krugman noted that "misrepresentation and deception are standard operating procedure for this administration," and on June 10, he demanded accountability, blasting the Bush team's m.o. as one of "cherry picking, of choosing and exaggerating intelligence that suited [their] preconceptions." At press time, the Bush team and Tony Blair stand widely accused of intentionally publicizing bogus evidence to justify the war. Not only did Bush rely on forged documents when he made the claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, but, as Kristof reported on May 6 and June 13, everyone in the intelligence community knew this was a lie, including the office of Dick Cheney. With some Democrats demanding public WMD hearings, the Bush team is running scared, scheduling closed hearings and scheming to make CIA director George Tenet the fall guy. What did the president know, and when did he know it? The refrain dates back to Watergate days, when Richard Nixon had to resign because of his lies. Just think, with gavel-to-gavel coverage, WMD hearings could be an enlightening spectacle, filling the cable channels with Watergate nostalgia while reminding the world that in America, political leaders have an obligation to tell the truth. Even lying about sex, as conservatives liked to remind us during the Clinton era, is an impeachable offense. Now that a Republican is accused of lying to launch an endless military occupation, hawks are rushing to reassert the legitimacy of U.S. aggression. But the "bouquet of new justifications," as Maureen Dowd calls their arguments, have wilted quickly. What's the rush to find WMD? asks the Bush camp. We found other neat stuff, like torture chambers. Saddam Hussein had these weapons before, but he hid them really well--or maybe sent them to Syria. Dr. Germ and Mrs. Anthrax aren't talking, 'cause they don't want to be tried as war criminals. And besides, would Dubya lie to you? The Bush defense begins and ends with the assertion that we're better off now that the U.S. is occupying Iraq. Questioned on June 9 about his reasons for going to war, Bush declared, "The credibility of the United States is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful." It is? Some hawkish columnists invoke noble goals to justify the war, but they dodge the question of organized deception. Writing for the British Mirror on June 5, Christopher Hitchens argued that allegations of hyped evidence do not discredit regime change in Iraq, concluding that the failure to find WMD is "a good thing on the whole"--because it means Hussein has been disarmed. On June 4, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman shrugged off WMD hype as a necessary selling technique for Bush, arguing that we hit Hussein "because we could" and that what matters is whether we succeed at building a "progressive Arab regime." In other words, the ends justify the means. In a June 8 op-ed, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan apologized for Bush and Blair by linking them with anyone who ever said Iraq had WMD. "If Bush and [Blair] are lying," he wrote, "they're not alone. They're part of a vast conspiratorial network of liars that includes U.N. weapons inspectors and reputable arms control experts both inside and outside the government." Post letter writers responded that the issue is not whether Iraq had WMD in the past, but whether those weapons posed an imminent threat and justified war. (Blair had endorsed bogus evidence that Hussein could deploy his arsenal in 45 minutes flat.) Bush is so comfortable bending the truth to defend this war that he recently denied the consensus that no WMD have been found. On Polish TV last month, he said, "We've found the weapons of mass destruction. You know, we found biological laboratories. . . . And we'll find more weapons as times goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." Ah, the mysterious labs, a/k/a trucks or trailers. These were introduced on May 28 by U.S. officials who called them "the strongest evidence yet" that Iraq was hiding a biological warfare program. But as a former UN inspector told The Washington Post, "the government's finding is based on eliminating any possible alternative explanation for the trucks, which is a controversial methodology under any circumstances." If wishful thinking fails, hawks can always fall back on blaming the messenger. In a June 10 op-ed in the New York Post, the Heritage Foundation's Peter Brookes suggested that if intelligence analysts felt bullied by the Bush administration to cook the evidence, it was their fault for not resisting the pressure. The same day, the Post's John Podhoretz weighed in with the warning that anyone who accuses Bush of planting WMD evidence will be exceeding the bounds of "taste, logic, good sense or reason." The most cynical strategy involves expressing disbelief that our leaders are capable of lying. "Does anybody believe that President Bush [and his military brass] ordered U.S. soldiers outside Baghdad to don heavy, bulky chemical-weapon suits in scorching heat . . . to maintain a charade?" wrote Charles Krauthammer in The Washington Post on June 13. On June 4, Brookes explained why Bush and company are too smart to lie: If they intentionally deceived the public, "not finding the weapons would then spell big trouble for administration officials. Why tell a lie they knew would eventually come to light?" The New York Post's Deroy Murdock chimed in on June 14 with the opposite argument--these guys are actually too dumb to lie. "Were Bush and Blair clever enough [to have hyped WMD]," wrote Murdock, "they should be crafty enough by now to have 'discovered' enough botulinum to have justified hostilities." In retrospect, the Bush administration's most publicized war stories have all been the products of smoke and mirrors. Contrary to the initial hype, the Hussein "decapitation strike" turned up no bodies and no bunkers. Chemical Ali walked out alive. Jessica Lynch was never shot, stabbed, or tortured by Iraqis. And despite all the hot tips Ahmad Chalabi spoon-fed to New York Times reporter Judith Miller, the WMD search teams have not found a single silver bullet or smoking gun. The war on Iraq is a Byzantine puzzle that begins and ends with a lie. The media have an obligation to expose it. Copyright © 2003 Village Voice Media, Inc., 36 Cooper Square, New York, NY 10003 The Village Voice and Voice are registered trademarks. All rights reserved. _______________________________ 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.) ============================================================ 6:03:22 PM