Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
rooster -- like I said . . . (eom)
oooh -- widdle zitty is jealous (eom)
easymoney101 -- re You want more about this crooked lieing BSTD?? I can give you more. -- BRING IT ON!!!!
rooster -- I do, yes -- can't handle the truth re Rove, eh? -- lol
Data -- where'd you come up with this tripe-filled puff piece? -- afraid to reveal your 'source'?
easymoney101 -- was the "Substitute Communications Systems" tax referred to in the following one of Jeb's bright ideas? -- at the least he signed it into law (rather than vetoing it), right? -- this looks like the kind of thing that could be used to shut down widespread access to the information and free expression available on the internet; maybe Jeb's trying it out in Florida as a prelude to what dubya'd like to do nationwide in a second term?:
Bills to Repeal 'Substitute Communications Systems' Tax Moving Forward Through Florida House and Senate
Thursday March 18, 9:49 am ET
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., March 18 /PRNewswire/ --
Background:
Under the current language of the "Substitute Communications Systems" tax (which is included in the Communications Services Tax Simplification law codified in Chapter 202 F.S.), the Florida Department of Revenue is required to develop a rule that will allow it to broadly interpret how to implement this new tax law.
If it is not repealed during the 2004 Legislative session, this tax -- 202.11(16), Fla. Stat. -- will be broadly implemented and could lead to excessively high taxes for nearly every business (approx. 14% tax rate) and individual (approx. 7.5% tax rate) with an in-house computer or phone network. ITFlorida is aware of no other state with such a tax.
Status:
Legislation to repeal this tax includes: HB735, sponsored by Representative John Stargel (850-488-2270 or stargel.john@myflorida.com); and SB2302, sponsored by Senator Mike Haridopolos (850-487-5056, haridopolos.mike.web@flsenate.gov).
HB735 passed the House Subcommittee on Telecommunications on March 9 and passed the Business Regulation Committee yesterday (March 17). It is anticipated that the bill will next move forward to the Finance & Tax Committee. On the Senate side, SB2302 passed the Communication and Public Utilities Committee on March 16. It has now moved forward to the Comprehensive Planning Committee.
Quotes:
"The continued progress of the bills to repeal the 'Substitute Communications Systems' tax is positive news for Florida's high tech and business communities," said Rick Kearney, Chair, ITFlorida. "If left unchecked, the tax will be applied to every organization with a Local Area Network, Wide Area Network, and 802.11 wireless network. It is difficult to imagine a more anti-technology, anti-business tax than one which directly attacks the efficient use of information technology.
"The anticipated revenue that will be generated from the substitute communications systems tax will be offset by the loss of jobs and businesses that relocate out of the state as a direct result of this tax," Kearney explained.
For more information:
Rick Kearney, Chair ITFlorida, 800-748-1120 or Rick.Kearney@mainline.com
Laurie LoRe, Executive Director, ITFlorida, 800-748-1120, lore@itflorida.com
Source: ITFlorida (emphasis added)
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040318/flth013_1.html
(COMTEX) B: Scalia Won't Remove Self From Cheney Case ( AP Online )
WASHINGTON, Mar 18, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- A defiant Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia refused Thursday to remove himself from a case involving Vice President Dick Cheney, a close friend, dismissing questions about a possible conflict of interest.
He rejected a request by the Sierra Club, which said it was improper for Scalia to take a hunting trip with Cheney while the environmental group's lawsuit involving the vice president was pending at the court.
"Even one unnecessary recusal impairs the functioning of the court," Scalia wrote in a 21-page memo.
The Sierra Club is suing to get information about private meetings of Cheney's energy task force.
Scalia has maintained there was nothing improper about the trip he took with Cheney three weeks after the court agreed to consider the case.
By GINA HOLLAND
Associated Press Writer
Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
speaking of Halliburton-boy:
Pentagon to Withhold Up to $300M From Halliburton
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon (search) plans to withhold about $300 million in payments to Halliburton Co. (search) because of possible overcharging for meals served to troops in Iraq and Kuwait, defense officials said Wednesday.
Starting next month, the Defense Department will begin withholding 15 percent of the money paid to Vice President Dick Cheney's former company on a multibillion-dollar contract to provide services such as food, housing, laundry and mail to American forces in Iraq.
Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company disagreed with the decision and hoped to persuade the Pentagon to drop its plans. If the Defense Department does withhold the money, Halliburton will in turn withhold 15 percent of its payments to its subcontractors, Hall said.
Houston-based Halliburton and its military services subsidiary, KBR (search), face a criminal investigation into alleged misdeeds in government work in Iraq and Kuwait. In this case, Pentagon auditors accuse KBR of overestimating the number of troops to be served meals, thus reaping millions in overcharges.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114488,00.html
ed -- not insecure at all -- just giving really dumb posts all the respect they deserve -- and that's some nifty selective outrage you display -- never have seen you say a word about all the goodies thrown my way
ah, more classic zit bs gibberish, alternating between wickedly unwarranted self-adulation and willfully uncomprehending and nonsensically generalized slanders of others -- you truly are on a completely self-blinded, self-absorbed and self-indulgent roll tonight -- 'DUBYA!' 'ASSCRACK!' 'DUBYA!' 'ASSCRACK!' 'DUBYA!' -- you're one funny guy, zit
rooster, you want spin? Halliburton-boy on a roll:
Car Bomb Destroys Hotel in Baghdad
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
FOX NEWS
BAGHDAD, Iraq — A massive car bomb ripped through a five-story hotel catering to foreigners Wednesday night, killing 26 and wounding 41.
In a separate incident, a U.S. soldier was killed and seven others wounded in a mortar attack north of Baghdad, Reuters reported.
Flames and heavy smoke from the Mount Lebanon Hotel (search) torched nearby homes, offices and shops. Rescuers pulled bodies from the rubble and searched for other victims.
There was no official word on who was responsible for the attack but a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said Jordanian Islamic militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) is among those suspected of playing a key role.
Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News the deadly attack showed the "terrorists are becoming more and more desperate" as the June 30 deadline for transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people nears. [F6 comment -- yah right, they're 'desperate' because recess ends and they all have to go inside and behave after June 30 -- fat chance -- and what an absolutely shameless lie being spouted by Halliburton-boy and others in the administration -- all evidence clearly indicates that the islamic militants, invited and welcomed into the previously off-limits Iraq precisely by the chaos resulting from our invasion and occupation, are becoming stronger, better organized and more effective, and not the contrary . . .]
The U.S. military has said that from now until June 30, there could be an increase in violence in Iraq. [F6 note -- and after June 30 it's all just gonna stop -- again, yah right]
Dazed and wounded people stumbled from the wreckage, marked by a jagged, 20-foot-wide crater. A father cradled his young daughter, who was limp in his arms. Coated in dust, some rescuers dug through the debris with bare hands as uniformed firefighters fought the blaze and ambulance workers stood by with orange stretchers.
"It was a huge boom followed by complete darkness and then the red glow of a fire," said 16-year-old Walid Mohammed Abdel-Maguid, who lives near the hotel. A U.S. soldier a mile away said the blast — which took place about 8 p.m. — felt as though it were next door.
Army Col. Ralph Baker of the 1st Armored Division estimated that the bomb contained 1,000 pounds of explosives. He said the bomb was a mix of plastic explosives and artillery shells. That was the same mixture of explosives used in the Aug. 19 suicide attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, which killed 22 people.
Americans, Britons, Egyptians as well as other foreigners were staying at the Mount Lebanon Hotel, said Baghdad resident Faleh Kalhan. But some residents in the area said they believed guests left the hotel a week ago after its management received threats. If true, many casualties were likely in adjacent buildings. The British Broadcasting Corp. reported that two Britons were among the wounded.
The blast ignited at least eight cars, one of which was hurled into a store. Some vehicles were little more than mangled piles of metal. The explosion blew bricks, air conditioners, furniture, wires and other debris hundreds of yards from the hotel.
The Mount Lebanon was a so-called soft target because it did not have concrete blast barriers and other security measures that protect offices of the U.S.-led coalition and buildings where Westerners live and work.
"I'm surprised this explosion happened to this hotel" since it's not very high-profile, one Iraqi National Congress member told Fox News. "Maybe the terrorists are getting so desperate to find targets" since many other buildings are well protected "at a time when Iraqis are making a lot of advances in democracy," he continued.
A senior Bush administration official told Fox News that the bombing in Baghdad is consistent with a recent trend in which such attacks are being directed against "softer targets." This is because it has become ever more difficult to attack U.S.-protected targets. As another example of this trend, the official cited a recent attack against a religious site in Karbala.
FBI agents were taking part in the investigation, Fox News confirmed.
The White House offered prayers for the victims but said such attacks would not change U.S. policy.
"Democracy is taking root in Iraq and there is no turning back," said spokesman Scott McClellan. "This is a time of testing, but the terrorists will not prevail."
The attack came just three days before the first anniversary of the start of the U.S. launched its military campaign to oust Saddam Hussein from Iraq. It took place behind Firdaus Square (search), where Iraqis toppled a bronze statue of Saddam on April 9 with the help of U.S. Marines who had just entered the center of the capital.
Some experts said the attack was likely timed to coincide with the anniversary.
"I don't think there's any doubt about that at all," said Ret. Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst.
After the blast, American forces and Iraqi ambulances hurried to the scene. Dozens of U.S. soldiers in Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles cleared crowds. Earlier, two U.S. soldiers tried to help pull bodies from the wreckage of the hotel, but angry Iraqis pushed them back.
The explosion left a crater 20 feet wide and 10 feet deep, and American forensic experts studied the scene. The area of the blast, Karrada, is a mix of residential and commercial buildings.
The blast shook the nearby Palestine Hotel, where many foreign contractors and journalists are based. It also damaged the nearby Swan Lake Hotel, home to many foreigners, including several journalists. The power of the bomb left the bureau of Arabic Al-Jazeera satellite television in a shambles, with windows smashed and televisions hanging from cords.
"All of our offices in this hotel are nearly destroyed. I was typing some information for a story and the windows blew in and covered me," said the bureau's senior editor, Mohammed Abdul Rahim, a Syrian.
No one in Swan Lake Hotel appeared to be wounded.
Gwenaelle Lenoir, a reporter for French Channel 3 television, was dazed.
"We were just finishing mixing our story and we heard a very big boom and there were no more windows and no more lights," she said.
Across the street from the Mount Lebanon Hotel, the one-story house of a Christian family of seven was virtually destroyed. The bodies of a man and a woman were pulled from the debris.
A two-story annex belonging to the Baghdad Hospital was in flames, with one side sheared off. A separate two-story complex of offices and shops was also badly damaged.
The blast startled occupants of the Green Zone, a heavily protected area that houses the headquarters of the U.S.-led occupation across the Tigris river from the hotel.
"We felt the blast here, it was a huge blast," U.S. Army Col. Jill Morgenthaler said. "We're a mile south of that and I thought it was striking next door."
Assailants, including homicide bombers, have repeatedly carried out bomb attacks in Iraq since August. The targets have included Iraqi police stations, army recruiting centers, the U.N. headquarters and the offices of the international Red Cross.
Brig. Gen. Mark Hertling, deputy commander of the 1st Armored Division said he did not believe Iraqis linked to former ruling Baath party were behind the attack, saying that they are believed to be focusing attacks on U.S. soldiers.
"We're going after the extremists in Iraq and the extremists coming from outside Iraq," Hertling said. "It's just so frustrating. ... You take three steps forward and something like this happens and you take one step back."
Referring to a possible role in the attack by al-Zarqawi, the counterterrorism official said that while there were other possibilities, the Jordanian has had a role in a number of large attacks.
However, "it's not his style to claim responsibility for attacks. At this point, it is not clear who is responsible," the official added.
The official said there has been a continuing trend of hitting "soft targets" such as hotels or other civilian sites in Iraq.
In other developments Wednesday:
— The Iraqi Governing Council asked U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send back a U.N. team to help put together a government that would take over from the U.S.-led coalition on June 30. The council also requested technical assistance ahead of a general election due by the end of January 2005.
— U.S. and Iraqi military forces launched a large operation to weed out insurgents and seize illegal weapons. They used troops, helicopters and armored vehicles to raid a suspected arms market in the capital.
— A homemade bomb exploded in central Baghdad, wounding a U.S. soldier and two Iraqi security personnel as they patrolled the area, U.S. Army Col. Peter Jones said.
— A U.S. Bradley fighting vehicle overturned into the Tigris River in central Iraq, killing one 1st Infantry Division soldier and injuring two others, the military said.
— Insurgents used dynamite to attack an overpass on the main highway leading from Baghdad to Jordan, causing it to partly collapse and block one side of the road, witnesses said.
Fox News' Todd Connor, Liza Porteus, James Rosen and The Associated Press contributed to this report. (emphasis added)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,114449,00.html
zit -- ah, geez, did I step on your tail?
'DUBYA!' 'ASSCRACK!' 'DUBYA!' 'ASSCRACK!' 'DUBYA!' 'ASSCRACK!' 'DUBYA!'
(look at that -- he learned a new word!) (. . .)
congrats, zit -- that's some serious bs wrapped in some serious gibberish -- well said indeed -- lmao
rooster -- actually, you got that exactly bass-ackwards -- it is you and a couple of your friends who, in reverse of course, are the ones furiously spinning and evading things here -- and when you've got nothing else left, I guess you just try a little projection, eh?
it's since become clear to me that there's no point in trying to have any sort of real discussion with you or your 'simple absolutes' friends -- but what the heck, I keep trying every now and again anyway -- frankly, it's kinda like trying to have a chat with the AFLAC duck's chronically addled brother -- you know, the one who can't do anything other than quack 'DUBYA!' 'DUBYA!' . . .
migo -- just days ago I heard on one of the networks that some significant portion of the humvees over there still have only those cloth 'doors' -- not even regular un-armored metal doors, let alone the armored doors . . .
U.S. foreign policy still reeling
A year after unilateral invasion, effects still being felt
By Andrea Mitchell
Correspondent
NBC News
Updated: 9:29 a.m. ET March 17, 2004
WASHINGTON - A year after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, American diplomats are still trying to repair the damage with critics of the war.
At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that American credibility has been hurt, and needs to be restored.
The leaders of France and Germany, while trying to make amends on a personal level with President Bush, are still saying, "I told you so," because of the U.S. failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
And even though several intelligence services contributed to the CIA's pre-war judgments about Saddam Hussein's weapons, the reputation of the American intelligence agency has been hurt, at home and abroad.
Mending fences
How does this affect foreign policy? Already there are signs that the administration is now more willing to work with allies to solve multilateral problems, like weapons' proliferation.
This is partly to avoid reinforcing the criticism that the United States was too willing to go it alone in Iraq. But in fact, it is also a response to domestic politics.
In an election year, no administration wants to take on intractable issues by itself. So, for the first time, there seems to be more flexibility on a range of subjects, from Libya to North Korea.
On Libya, the administration has negotiated a major breakthrough, disarming Tripoli in return for a promise to normalize relations.
On North Korea, American negotiators have hinted that Pyongyang could win economic support in exchange for giving up its nuclear programs, something the Bush White House has long refused to even discuss.
And, although the relationship is still fractious, the United States and France found it mutually beneficial to work together to try to resolve the crisis in Haiti.
Post-war image problems
At the same time, the unexpectedly difficult post-war occupation and the failure to find catastrophic weapons in Iraq have combined to complicate American diplomacy in the Middle East.
At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan has said that American credibility has been hurt, and needs to be restored.
The leaders of France and Germany, while trying to make amends on a personal level with President Bush, are still saying, "I told you so," because of the U.S. failure to find weapons of mass destruction.
And even though several intelligence services contributed to the CIA's pre-war judgments about Saddam Hussein's weapons, the reputation of the American intelligence agency has been hurt, at home and abroad.
Mending fences
How does this affect foreign policy? Already there are signs that the administration is now more willing to work with allies to solve multilateral problems, like weapons' proliferation.
This is partly to avoid reinforcing the criticism that the United States was too willing to go it alone in Iraq. But in fact, it is also a response to domestic politics.
In an election year, no administration wants to take on intractable issues by itself. So, for the first time, there seems to be more flexibility on a range of subjects, from Libya to North Korea.
On Libya, the administration has negotiated a major breakthrough, disarming Tripoli in return for a promise to normalize relations.
On North Korea, American negotiators have hinted that Pyongyang could win economic support in exchange for giving up its nuclear programs, something the Bush White House has long refused to even discuss.
And, although the relationship is still fractious, the United States and France found it mutually beneficial to work together to try to resolve the crisis in Haiti.
Post-war image problems
At the same time, the unexpectedly difficult post-war occupation and the failure to find catastrophic weapons in Iraq have combined to complicate American diplomacy in the Middle East.
Instead of the momentum the administration hoped to gain throughout the Arab world from its show of military might against Iraq, the security challenges since the war have created to many an image of a powerless giant, pinned down by Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters.
Critics of the administration say it has not shown the same dedication to Middle East diplomacy that it has to military intervention. The continuing stalemate between Israel and the Palestinians is, in the region, blamed more on American diffidence than the intractability of Yasser Arafat or Ariel Sharon.
In the aftermath of a war fought to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction, the world discovered that other countries not targeted for American attack had even more advanced nuclear programs than Iraq.
After years of ignoring obvious signs that Pakistan was helping rogue nations obtain nuclear technology, U.S. intelligence confronted Pakistanis with overwhelming evidence that the father of their nuclear program, A.Q. Khan, has been selling nuclear secrets to Libya, Iran, and North Korea.
Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf was finally forced to indict Khan, and then quickly pardoned him. But, most experts find it difficult to believe that Pakistan's military, its intelligence service, and perhaps Musharraf himself, were not aware all along of Khan's extensive operation.
Homeland Security
There is also a continuing debate over whether the war has made America safer or more vulnerable. The heads of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, and FBI all testified to the Senate Intelligence Committee at the end of February that the country is safer than it was a year ago.
But at the same time, they said that arresting al-Qaida leaders has not eliminated the threat. Splinter groups have adopted al-Qaida's mission of attacking the United States' homeland with weapons of mass destruction.
CIA director George Tenet warned that the possibility of a poison attack or the use of anthrax by a terror group is very real.
Would this be true had the United States not attacked Saddam Hussein? U.S. officials say absolutely.
But the continuing al-Qaida threat gives ammunition to foreign leaders and political opponents who say the threat from al-Qaida was greater than that of Iraq, and should have been a higher priority.
The defeat of Spain's conservative government last weekend in the aftermath of the Madrid train bombings underscored the perils for allies who supported the U.S. campaign.
Reluctance to intervene elsewhere
Foreign policy has also been affected by post-war reluctance to use force again unless absolutely necessary, because the U.S. military is now spread too thin. This was seen principally in Haiti, where critics said the United States was dragging its feet in contributing military aid to help diffuse the crisis.
Perhaps the biggest effect of the war is the perception that the State Department and Secretary Powell, having lost the internal battle over Iraq to hawks at the Pentagon, are no longer in charge of American foreign policy.
The impression of diplomatic weakness, whether accurate or not, can undercut U.S. effectiveness on a range of issues, from the Middle East to North Korea.
So, a year after the United States invaded Iraq, America is now turning to the United Nations for help in Iraq, and France for help in Haiti. Ironies abound, none of them particularly helpful for the reputation of American foreign policy at home or abroad.
Andrea Mitchell is NBC News' Chief Foreign Affairs correspondent.
--------------------
FACT FILE Iraq’s missing WMDs
What Bush said and when he said it
The failure of U.S. inspection teams to find evidence of the vast arsenal of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that Washington accused Iraq of hiding before the war has become a major political problem for President Bush. Here is a selection of the president’s quotes on the topic before and after the war.
Jan 31, 2002: State of the Union address
In the president’s first major expansion of the war on terrorism to include more traditional U.S. rivals, he described an “axis of evil” that included Iran, North Korea and Iraq. Of Baghdad he said: “Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax and nerve gas and nuclear weapons for over a decade. This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.”
Sept. 12, 2002: Address to the U.N. General Assembly
President Bush steered clear of direct accusations for most of the summer of 2002, allowing such statements to be leaked to the media or to come from his Cabinet. On Sept. 12, 2002, however, the president took the U.S. case directly to the U.N. General Assembly. In that address, he said:
“Delegates to the General Assembly, we have been more than patient. We've tried sanctions. We've tried the carrot of oil for food and the stick of coalition military strikes. But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.”
Details
Oct. 7, 2002: Cincinnati speech on Iraq
The administration followed the president’s speech at the United Nations with a whirlwind campaign to win support for a U.N. resolution authorizing force. At the same time, Bush delivered what the White House billed as a “major foreign policy speech on Iraq” to the Cincinnati Museum Center:
“Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?”
Details
Oct. 16, 2002 – Signing the Iraq war resolution
In October 2002, the House and Senate agreed after a short debate to authorize the use of force against Iraq if President Bush deemed such an action necessary. In the Oval Office signing ceremony, the president said:
“On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons.”
Details
Jan 31, 2003: State of the Union address
By January 2003, war with Iraq appeared imminent. President Bush’s case against Iraq became more specific, citing U.N., U.S. and foreign intelligence sources:
”Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. Inspectors recently turned up 16 of them -- despite Iraq's recent declaration denying their existence. Saddam Hussein has not accounted for the remaining 29,984 of these prohibited munitions. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them.”
Details
April 24, 2003: Abrams tank factory
Speaking at a factory in Lima, Ohio, that builds the Abrams main battle tank, Bush began to temper U.S. expectations by raising the possibility that Iraq had destroyed its weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war:
“He tried to fool the United Nations and did for 12 years by hiding these weapons. And so it's going to take time to find them," the president said. "But we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth”
Details
May 1, 2003: End to ‘major combat operations’
In a highly choreographed appearance on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, President Bush declared an end to "major combat operations" in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction were not central to the speech. Rather, the president emphasized that the Iraq war was a seamless part of the war on terrorism that began on Sept. 11, 2001:
“Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country and a target of American justice. Any person, organization or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent and equally guilty of terrorist crimes. Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world -- and will be confronted.”
Details
June 5, 2003: With the troops in Qatar
"We recently found two mobile biological weapons facilities which were capable of producing biological agents. This is the man who spent decades hiding tools of mass murder. He knew the inspectors were looking for them. You know better than me he's got a big country in which to hide them. We're on the look. We'll reveal the truth," the president said.
Details
June 17, 2003: ‘Revisionist history’
As House and Senate intelligence panels considered inquiries into alleged “intelligence rigging” before the war, President Bush continued to defend the administration’s statements and actions:
“We acted in Iraq, as well. We made it clear to the dictator of Iraq that he must disarm,” he told an audience in Annandale, Va. “We asked other nations to join us in seeing to it that he would disarm, and he chose not to do so, so we disarmed him. And I know there's a lot of revisionist history now going on, but one thing is certain. He is no longer a threat to the free world, and the people of Iraq are free.”
Details
Dec. 17, 2003: ‘What’s the difference?’
Three days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush offered his most direct defense yet of the administration’s decision to go to war. Speaking to ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, Bush insisted the hunt for WMD would go on and said he had not ruled out finding weapons yet. When pressed by Sawyer, he insisted that finding WMD is not necessary to justify the war.
“So what’s the difference? If he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger. That's what I'm trying to explain to you. A gathering threat, after 9/11, is a threat that needed to be dealt with, and it was done after 12 long years of the world saying the man's a danger.“
Source: Michael Moran/MSNBC research
--------------------
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4379548/
zit -- you seriously do not understand that such things are done by all Senators, absolutely routinely, as each one tries to jockey all the stuff s/he's juggling into final bills that are passed and signed into law!? -- you seriously do not understand that in fact there is absolutely nothing inconsistent or otherwise remarkable about this in context!?
and where'd you get this little gem anyway? -- on a quick check I didn't see any story about this even on the Fox site
all I've heard that may have had to do with this was a clip on TV, yesterday I think, in which I believe I heard Kerry say he would have voted for the 87bil in the final vote if he'd gotten something he was looking for, I believe in terms of taxation of high-income types -- in other words, when there was no doubt the 87bil was gonna pass, Kerry decided to cast a protest 'nay' vote unless he actually got something for his 'yea' -- there is nothing 'flip-floppish' or otherwise remarkable about that at all, in particular where he was right on the money being hacked off at the administration at that time for all their by-then obvious lies getting the earlier authorization vote, in which he of course voted 'yea' in the spirit at taking the administration at its word and supporting the President on such an issue . . .
rooster -- you didn't answer my questions -- read my post again
rooster -- sources please -- in particular this last one -- for example, what year is the year being compared to 2000 (i.e., to what extent had dubya's tax cuts kicked in in that year)? -- re earnings percentages, don't forget 2000 was a huge cap gains year, which also held down the relative percent of taxes the top tiers paid in 2000
also, did you notice that according to your numbers, the bottom 75% together make only 34.77% of all income, and the bottom 50% together make only 13.81% of all income -- meaning, for example, that an average member of the top 10% makes 15.61 times more, an average member of the top 5% makes 23.16 times more, and an average member of the top 1% makes 63.11 times more, than an average member of the bottom 50% (where the bulk of those gaps, especially at the 5% and 1% levels, is made up of income from wealth and assets rather than from wages)? -- so, anyway -- just what is your concept of what is 'fair' here?
and most importantly, beyond the foregoing, your numbers are meaningless to provide any accurate view of the complete picture because by their own terms ('income taxes') they don't even include the highly regressive SSI/FICA taxes, which for lower-income workers (certainly most, if not basically all, of that bottom 50% that together make only 13.81% of all income) amount to much more than their income taxes as such, taking a lot of the 'skew' out of the picture you've drawn -- and guess what, in any second term for dubya, those same SSI/FICA taxes, which dubya has never cut and has never had any intention to cut, will not be cut, even as Social Security benefits are cut to reduce the deficit deliberately created by dubya's tax cuts that overwhelmingly benefitted the best-off among us -- all right according to dubya and company's plan . . .
Kerry gets help fighting Bush advantage
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:01 p.m. ET March 16, 2004
WASHINGTON - Democrat John Kerry is spending only one-third of the money that President Bush is pouring into television advertising this week, but viewers in such cities as Cleveland and Milwaukee likely will see more anti-Bush commercials than the other way around.
Two liberal groups working on behalf of, but independently from, Kerry are helping the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee match Bush ad for ad in key media markets in battleground states.
Bush, whose re-election campaign has raised more than $160 million, still has the advantage and has spent millions more than Democrats so far. But Kerry, the Media Fund and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund combined make Democrats competitive on the air.
“The question is does Bush eventually outrun these groups? They’re at parity now, but are they going to be at the end of April or in May or June?” asked Evan Tracey, president of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks ad spending.
Bush, his campaign fund growing with each fund-raiser, has been blanketing the airwaves in 18 states since March 4 with at least $6 million a week in television spots. He’s running ads at moderate-to-heavy levels in most media markets in those states instead of cherry-picking areas like the Democrats, who must be selective because of limited finances.
The incumbent Republican, unchallenged for re-election, sat on his campaign treasury during the early primaries in hopes of crushing the eventual Democratic nominee with a torrent of ads in the spring and summer.
Now, Bush advisers privately acknowledge that Democrats have evened the advertising playing field in key markets, and hope their rivals can’t afford to keep it up much longer.
The third-party effect
Greg Stevens, a Republican strategist in John McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign, said: “The tremendous advantage that the president enjoyed going into this period is certainly being undercut by these third-party groups, which are clearly benefiting Kerry.”
Bush’s latest ads, unveiled last week, assail Kerry on taxes and terrorism, and all but forced Kerry onto the air in response as he is trying to replenish his campaign account.
Kerry is spending $2 million this week in limited media markets on the response ad that accuses the president of “misleading” the nation and mischaracterizing his proposals.
Alone, Kerry’s ad buy is nowhere close to Bush’s, but it exceeds the president’s spending in many markets, and overall in competitive states such as Ohio, Michigan and West Virginia when combined with the $8 million the Media Fund and MoveOn are spending over two weeks. Democratic spending draws even with Bush in other states, including Arizona and Pennsylvania.
The two groups, funded in part by billionaire George Soros, are running anti-Bush ads using “soft money” — corporate, union and unlimited donations — which the national political parties are now barred from accepting.
Republicans and some campaign finance watchdog groups filed complaints with the Federal Election Commission challenging the legality of the groups, which say they can run ads promoting Kerry or criticizing Bush if they don’t expressly urge viewers to vote for or against a candidate.
The groups can coordinate with each other, but it is illegal for them to have contact with Kerry’s campaign or the Democratic National Committee. However, Kerry officials and party strategists can find out where the groups have bought airtime to make decisions about where they need to counter Bush’s buys with their own money.
MoveOn’s ad run ended Monday, but it will go back up on the air Saturday in a few markets with a spot urging Congress to censure Bush for his handling of Iraq.
Kerry, the Media Fund and MoveOn are in fewer media markets than Bush but are targeting their money in areas that are expected to be among the most competitive and that reach large numbers of swing voters. Democrats are pumping in more money than Bush — and running more ads — in markets such as Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, St. Louis and Detroit, and are running even with the president in others, including Phoenix.
On the air in 18 states
Bush, on the other hand, is on the air in most markets in the 18 states, meaning he’s alone in traditional GOP-strongholds and motivating his base in places where the Democrats aren’t advertising.
His campaign’s wealth is apparent in certain areas.
As during the 2000 general election, Bush has a 2-to-1 advantage over Democrats in Florida, where he is spending more than $1 million this week to the Democrats’ $500,000.
While Democrats have the upper hand in the Orlando-Daytona Beach market, where they are outspending Bush, they aren’t running ads in the ultra-expensive Miami-Fort Lauderdale market, where the president is advertising.
For all the money being spent, Democratic strategist Bill Carrick said, “It’s so early that what happens today is going to have virtually no impact on voters.”
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4540636/
Gennifer Flowers' defamation lawsuit dismissed
Wednesday, March 17, 2004 Posted: 10:10 AM EST (1510 GMT)
LAS VEGAS, Nevada (AP) -- A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing two former advisers to Bill Clinton of defaming Gennifer Flowers when they suggested that the audiotapes she used to try to prove she and Clinton had an affair had been doctored.
U.S. District Judge Philip M. Pro ruled that no reasonable jury could find "clear and convincing evidence" that James Carville and George Stephanopoulos acted with malice.
The two former Clinton aides made their comments during interviews on talk shows in 1998 and 2000.
In a decision issued March 8, Pro also ruled that publisher Little, Brown & Co. did not defame Flowers in Stephanopoulos' 1999 book, "All Too Human."
The Flowers lawsuit sought unspecified punitive and compensatory damages. It was filed on her behalf in 1999 by Judicial Watch, a conservative Washington public-interest group. President Tom Fitton said Tuesday the group may appeal.
Carville's attorney, Bill McDaniel, said that the case was frivolous and politically motivated. He praised the judge's decision as a "strong opinion, the correct opinion."
The dispute dates to the 1992 presidential campaign, when Flowers said she had a 12-year affair with the Arkansas governor. During a news conference, she played audiotapes of conversations with Clinton that she said were evidence the two had an affair.
Clinton initially denied the allegation, but later, during his deposition in the Paula Jones sexual harassment case, acknowledged a single sexual encounter with Flowers.
In separate interviews on "Larry King Live," Carville and Stephanopoulos both described the tapes as "doctored." In his book, Stephanopoulos wrote that during the Flowers news conference he thought, "Maybe the tapes were doctored?"
Stephanopoulos and Carville said their comments were based on TV news reports. The reports quoted audio experts, including private investigator Anthony Pellicano, and asserted the tapes were "questionable and not to be trusted," the judge wrote.
Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/17/flowers.lawsuit.ap/index.html
Data -- keep shoveling, you'll find that pony in your bedroom someday, lol (more specifically responsive posts later)
Vatican Condemns Fertility Treatments as 'Massacre of the Innocents'
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
VATICAN CITY – The Vatican issued a broad condemnation Tuesday of fertility treatments such as in-vitro fertilization, calling the destruction of embryos in the process a "massacre of the innocents."
The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano published the final communique from the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life after a conference it hosted last month on "The dignity of human procreation and reproductive technologies: anthropological and ethical aspects."
In the communique, the academy restated the Vatican's position that any treatment that substitutes for sexual intercourse between a husband and wife, such as the creation of an embryo in a laboratory that is later implanted, is considered illicit because the embryo isn't the fruit of the "conjugal union."
However, the academy gave its blessing to therapies that can "facilitate" the natural sex act. It didn't give examples, but church officials have said drugs that help a woman ovulate are considered acceptable by the church because they allow for the possibility of "natural" fertilization.
In the statement, the academy expressed concern that doctors were referring couples more often to in-vitro technologies rather than diagnosing and correcting their underlying sterility.
It condemned the use of embryos for research, and called the destruction or loss of embryos in the in-vitro process "a true massacre of the innocents of our time: no war or catastrophe has ever caused so many victims."
Imagine That: Human Embryos Are Human
The Vatican holds that human embryos are human and thus deserve all the rights and dignity granted to humans.
Though acknowledging the suffering of parents who want a child, as well as the church's desire for married couples to bear children, the academy said there were limits.
"It needs to be repeated that an understandable 'desire for a child' can never transform itself into a pretentious 'right to a child' and beyond that, 'at all costs,"' the statement said. (emphasis added)
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/3/17/85053.shtml
(COMTEX) A: Cheney slams Kerry on national security ( United Press International )
SIMI VALLEY, Calif., Mar 17, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- Vice President Cheney, in a speech Wednesday at the Reagan Presidential Library in California, said President Bush is stronger on defense than rival John Kerry.
He said that the U.S. invasion of Iraq has made the world a safer place, touted the recent surrender of Libya's weapons of mass destruction programs and accused Kerry of failing to support the needs of the military.
Crossing into the political debate during his remarks on national security, Cheney said, "the American people will have a clear choice in the election of 2004 -- at least as clear as any since the election of 1984."
During an event earlier in Washington to announce a "Military Family Bill of Rights," Kerry vowed that as president he "will not hesitate to use force when it is needed to wage and win the war on terror," while decrying the current administration's "failed policies" in Iraq.
He was joined by former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and former Secretary of Defense William Perry.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
-0-
*** end of story ***
the myth of yet another hard-core rock-ribbed moralistically judgmental blowhard shattered -- what a crying shame:
(COMTEX) B: Critic: 'Dr. Phil' Isn't Doctor for All ( AP Online )
LOS ANGELES, Mar 17, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- When Neal David Sutz walked through the Paramount studio gate, he was looking forward to seeing a psychologist he respected, talk show host Phil McGraw.
Sutz didn't know he was about to get caught in the awkward intersection of entertainment and counseling where "Dr. Phil" holds ground.
A mental health activist who himself had undergone treatment, Sutz hoped to attend a taping and connect with McGraw afterward to enlist his help in a public information campaign.
Instead, the Mesa, Ariz., paralegal student was stopped short by paperwork. He and other would-be audience members were asked to sign a waiver attesting they didn't suffer from mental illness and weren't under psychiatric care.
The waiver also said that McGraw's statements shouldn't be considered therapy or a substitute for any form of therapy. Talking to a show representative, Sutz was told he could attend but couldn't talk to Dr. Phil or participate in the show - for Sutz's own protection.
He left instead. The incident, which occurred last fall, has weighed on him; so much for "Doctor" Phil, he said in an interview.
The disclaimer signals "that his advice is not real medical, psychological advice at all," said Sutz. "It is pure entertainment and he should stop insinuating that it is anything but that, especially not real counseling."
The blend of Hollywood and psychology in TV shows like "Dr. Phil" offers cause for concern, said Atlanta psychologist Robert Simmermon. "It is important to distinguish between entertainment and actual treatment. It's not done very well," Simmermon said.
It's likely that some of the millions of people who tune into "Dr. Phil" ignore disclaimers and view it as therapy, Simmermon said. "I think it does need to be studied."
McGraw has always been explicit about his show's intent, said Terry Wood, executive vice president of programming for Paramount Domestic Television, which produces the syndicated "Dr. Phil."
"Phil has said on the air many, many times that we are not doing therapy here," Wood said.
He makes it clear "on the air every day that you should not substitute his judgment for your own. ... I think he makes it very clear to the viewer that he's dealing with what's going on in the (studio) and he's dealing with the people who have come to him for help," she said.
McGraw, also a best-selling author, is the current star of an advice industry that includes TV shows, radio programs with hosts such as Laura Schlessinger and self-help books.
"Dr. Phil," created by Oprah Winfrey's Harpo Productions, is the No. 2 daytime talk show behind Winfrey's own gabfest and draws an average daily audience of about 6 million viewers.
McGraw regularly appeared with Winfrey before winning his showcase in 2002. He offers blunt, unequivocal advice to those who take the stage with him to share family problems, weight issues and other woes.
His Web site speaks with equal force to visitors.
"You cannot dodge responsibility for how and why your life is the way it is. If you don't like your job, you are accountable. If you are overweight, you are accountable. If you are not happy, you are accountable," McGraw said in one web passage.
The site includes a "Legal Disclaimer" that reads, in part, "All material provided on the DrPhil.com Web site is provided for entertainment, educational or informational use only, is not necessarily created or approved by a certified mental health professional ..."
Simmermon and other psychologists said they expect viewers, even those with mental problems, to keep such shows in perspective.
"A mental health struggle doesn't affect the ability to be independent, decision-making people," said Leon Vandercreek of Wright State University in Dayton, Ohio. They can make "that judgment call that TV is entertainment."
But it's not unusual for patients to mention McGraw's comments - or therapy they've seen on HBO's mob drama "The Sopranos" - in their own sessions.
That's fine, said one New York psychologist. "I think there's more concern about people who have problems and aren't in therapy and (lack) someone to talk to about it," said George Stricker, a research professor at Adelphi University in Garden City, N.Y.
Studies show the majority of people with mental problems don't seek help, said Xavier Amador, a Columbia University adjunct professor and a board member of the advocacy group National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.
McGraw "certainly smooths the way for people to feel they can speak with a psychologist," Amador said. "But the danger lies in the people who do need professional help and confuse what he's saying with that help."
Sutz, 33, who was diagnosed with bipolar II disorder (manic depression), called on "Dr. Phil" to add an on-screen advisory that McGraw's advice is not intended for those with a mental illness or in therapy.
That's a substantial group: An estimated one in five adults - 44 million Americans - suffers from a mental disorder, according to the National Institute of Mental Health.
McGraw's limits should be clearly spelled out for them, Sutz argues.
"Too many people in this country think Dr. Phil's words are the gospel for him to be mistreating the mentally ill, either directly or indirectly."
---
On the Net:
Dr. Phil's Web site: http://www.drphil.com
Sutz's Web site: http://www.kickitwithgusto.com
By LYNN ELBER
AP Television Writer
Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
rooster -- far better off than our resident intellectually-plucked hen, lol -- I am 'niave' how?? -- go ahead, show me where and how I've got it wrong, and back it up -- good luck!
rooster -- in your usual half-cocked way, you couldn't and didn't get it straight -- Saddam's Iraq was secular, not fundamentalist, and had nothing to do with 9/11 or any other of al Qaeda's activities -- and our mightily 'conquering' Saddam's Iraq had nothing to do with the 'war on terror', and in fact has only created vast new opportunities for al Qaeda and its fundamentalist affiliates to exploit
easymoney101 -- great find! -- I'm guessing this bill didn't get very far? -- I'd love to see it passed just so dub-dud, with a grinning asscrack behind him, would have to veto it . . .
easymoney101 -- an earlier report that I post because it adds quite a bit of current background/context re just how swimmingly things are going -- under Saddam, islamic fundamentalist terrorists simply could not and did not operate in the territory Saddam controlled; now, however, it seems all too clear that they are using our presence in Iraq and the chaos our invasion has created in Iraq to boost their recruitment and fund-raising, and to turn all of Iraq into their new training ground -- even as, according to our fearless leader and liar-in-chief in his tireless leadership of this administration's war on the truth, there can be no doubt that this is all somehow good for the 'war on terror' (recalling his by-now infamous 'bring it on!') -- and even as it (hardly surprisingly or unforeseeably) seems inevitable that once Iraqis are given the vote they will sooner or later, and probably sooner, turn Iraq into a Shiite fundamentalist theocracy that may or may not be at all friendly to the United States, and may even become a haven for fundamentalist terrorists quite hostile toward the United States (in which case no doubt we'll have to do for a second time what we did not have any true national security interest need to do this first time):
(COMTEX) B: Many feared dead after explosion rips through hotel in central Baghdad ( The Canadian Press )
BAGHDAD, Mar 17, 2004 (The Canadian Press via COMTEX) -- A large explosion destroyed a hotel in central Baghdad on Wednesday night, killing up to 10 people, Iraqi police said. A U.S. soldier at the scene said the damage was consistent with that of a car bomb.
Rescuers pulled bodies from the rubble of the five-storey Hotel Jabal Lebanon. The explosion left a huge crater. Five smaller, adjacent buildings were badly damaged.
Flames shot skyward, and heavy smoke rose behind a central square from the area of the blast. Trees were on fire, and flames jumped to nearby buildings. Eight cars were on fire, and one vehicle was hurled by the blast into a store.
An Iraqi police officer at the scene said as many as 10 people died and that the toll could be higher.
Dozens of U.S. soldiers in Humvees and Bradley fighting vehicles arrived and started to clear crowds. Earlier, two U.S. soldiers tried to help pull bodies from the wreckage of the hotel, but angry Iraqis pushed them back.
The blast shook the nearby Palestine Hotel, where many foreign contractors and journalists are based. The area of the blast, Karrada, is a mix of residential and commercial buildings.
The explosion took place behind Firdaus Square, where a bronze statue of Saddam Hussein was felled April 9 with the help of U.S. marines who had just entered the centre of the Iraqi capital.
Earlier Wednesday, the Iraqi Governing Council asked the United Nations for help putting together a new government, a council spokesman said.
The council requested that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan send a UN team back to Iraq to help organize a government that would take over from the U.S.-led coalition June 30, council spokesman Hamid al-Kafaai told The Associated Press.
The letter sent by council president Mohammed Bahr al-Ulloum, a Shiite cleric, also requested technical assistance in preparation for a general election due by the end of January 2005.
"The Governing Council has asked that the United Nations offers advice to Iraq in the field of elections and the formation of a transitional government," al-Kafaai said.
The United States has urged a UN role in the U.S.-backed political process for Iraq, and coalition spokesman Dan Senor welcomed news of the invitation.
The announcement of the invitation, decided in a council meeting Wednesday, followed remarks to reporters by Bahr al-Ulloum's deputy that Iraq's most powerful Shiite cleric and his supporters on the U.S.-appointed Governing Council were unhappy with a UN report last month that found Iraq unready for elections ahead of June 30.
Sami al-Askari said several council members did not think the return to Iraq of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi would be helpful and that Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani would not receive him if he returned.
"It is not Brahimi's personality, but some members have some reservations about the contents of his report and believe his return at the head of a UN delegation will hinder" the UN role in Iraq, said al-Askari.
Brahimi, a former Algerian foreign minister, was in Iraq last month at the head of a team of UN experts to investigate whether elections could be held before June 30. In a report, he said such a vote was not feasible, giving reasons long cited by Washington: no electoral structure, no reliable census and an untenable security situation.
At a news conference, al-Askari said: "His Eminence al-Sistani and many Shiites are unhappy with the report that the United Nations and Lakhdar Brahimi issued because it gives a lopsided picture of realities and facts, and paints a picture of a sectarian problem in Iraq."
Al-Askari was accompanied by Ahmad Chalabi, a powerful Shiite council member who said the council had agreed on the text of a letter to the United Nations. But Chalabi, who opposes Brahimi's return, said only that the letter recognized the expertise of the United Nations in the field of elections.
Also Wednesday, U.S. and Iraqi military forces launched a large operation to weed out insurgents and seize illegal weapons, with troops, helicopters and armoured vehicles raiding a suspected arms market in the capital.
The raid on the suspected arms market came during a week in which gunmen, in two separate attacks, killed two Europeans and four American missionaries working on water projects. The six killings suggest the insurgents are going after civilians to undermine reconstruction efforts.
The operation that began Wednesday, called "Iron Promise," was expected to involve thousands of U.S. troops from the Fort Hood, Texas-based 1st Cavalry Division, which has recently arrived in Iraq, and the outgoing Germany-based 1st Armoured Division. Scores of Iraqi Civil Defence Corps soldiers were also involved.
In the first raid, about 250 troops from the armoured division's 1st Squadron, 1st Cavalry Regiment as well as 250 Iraqi soldiers fanned out across the sprawling 20th Street Market, in the city's Al-Bayaa district, which sells everything from vegetables to used car parts.
In one car repair shop, U.S. troops found a pair of rocket-propelled grenade launchers and burlap sacks full of grenades. They arrested three men.
Some stores are suspected of supplying weapons to the rebels, said the raid's commander, Lt.-Col. Chuck Williams, 40, from Sterling, Va. He said the market assault was the start of a citywide crackdown on the guerrillas.
"There is a lot of pressure everywhere. It is all over town. The big things we are looking for is people moving weapons, IED (improvised explosive device) materials and explosives and ammunition. Our soldiers are looking to deter or discover this activity. We want to shut it off," he said.
In the latest example, a homemade bomb exploded in central Baghdad on Wednesday, wounding a U.S. soldier and two Iraqi security personnel as they patrolled the area, U.S. army Col. Peter Jones said.
Also Wednesday, insurgents used dynamite to attack an overpass on the main highway leading from Baghdad to Jordan, causing it to partly collapse and block one side of the road, witnesses said.
The highway is regularly used by U.S. military convoys and allows them to avoid the adjacent service road that runs through Fallujah and Ramadi, two cities in the so-called Sunni Triangle, a hotbed of anti-coalition activity. U.S. troops come under repeated attacks whenever they pass through the two cities.
JIM KRANE
The online source for news sports entertainment finance and business news in Canada
Copyright (C) 2004 The Canadian Press (CP), All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
zit -- well, at least you do sound like you know a lot about your favorite hobby golf -- no doubt you revel in the obvious parallel to your idol, that intellectual giant Clarence Thomas:
http://www.whitehouse.org/ask/cthomas.asp
(COMTEX) B: Swedish university receives stem cell research grant from Pentagon ( AP WorldStream )
STOCKHOLM, Sweden, Mar 17, 2004 (AP WorldStream via COMTEX) -- One of Sweden's leading universities announced Wednesday it has received a US$240,000 grant from the Pentagon to fund stem cell research related to Parkinson's disease.
The embryonic stem cell lines to be used are among the lines approved by the U.S. government for research supported by federal grants, Lund University researcher Patrik Brundin told The Associated Press.
The university in Lund, in southern Sweden, said the U.S. Department of Defense was interested in Parkinson's disease "because it is seen as a model for neurological diseases that can also be caused by toxic substances in military contexts."
In 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush restricted federal funding to stem cell lines existing at the time, some of which were in Sweden.
Brundin said researchers would use lines being kept at Goteborg University in Sweden's second largest city, because no stem cells are stored at Lund University.
Bush opposes the destruction of human embryos that occurs when stem cells are extracted.
Stem cells are the body's building blocks and have the potential to become many different types of cells. Scientists think the cells can be coaxed into specific cells to repair organs or treat diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's and Alzheimer's.
Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
(COMTEX) A: Bush airs first attack TV ad on Kerry ( United Press International )
CHARLESTON, W.Va., Mar 17, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The Bush administration has launched an attack ad campaign on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry, saying he turned his back on U.S. troops in Iraq.
For now, the ad is only being aired in West Virginia, where Kerry is campaigning.
The ad features pictures of soldiers while a narrator says Kerry voted in October 2002 for military action in Iraq but "later voted against funding for soldiers."
Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters Kerry's rhetoric on Iraq funding highlights "his tendency to depart from his record."
In response, Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said Kerry cast a "protest vote" against the $87 billion request in October, adding: "If Bush is so concerned about the troops, why did he send them to war without the equipment they needed, why did he mislead the nation about the threat of weapons of mass destruction and why has he opposed supporting increased troop pay?"
The president has moved unusually early to discredit his opponent, during a period when an incumbent generally tries to remain above the campaign fray, the Washington Post said.
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
-0-
*** end of story ***
(PR NEWSWIRE) Military Families Urge Censure for Bush as Congress Marks Iraq Anniversary
Coalition Critical of White House Deceptions
Delivers 560,340 Petition Signatures to House Offices
As Members Debate Resolution on the War
Win Without War Announces New Phase of Censure Campaign
WASHINGTON, March 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Families of soldiers serving, as well as of those who have been casualties, in the occupation of Iraq came to Capitol Hill today with other volunteers, urging Congress to censure President George W. Bush.
Meanwhile, volunteers carried petitions that filled 18 large boxes, signed so far by 560,340 members of MoveOn.org from every congressional district, to each office in the House of Representatives, reinforcing the demand for a censure resolution. The groups also displayed print and TV ads that will begin running this week.
"My son, Army Lt. Seth Dvorin, who died last month while serving in Iraq, met his responsibility to the nation he loved," said Sue Niederer of Pennington, NJ. "As his mother, I am joining hundreds of thousands of Americans today in asking that the Congress of the United States meet its responsibility, as well."
Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, said the combined activities represent an escalation of efforts that will continue. "The truth matters. By not holding the President accountable, the Congress is saying it doesn't. This is unacceptable," said Andrews, a former congressman and member of the Armed Services Committee.
"The resolution now before Congress is silent on the many ways Bush betrayed our trust, misleading us to make the case for this war," said Peter Schurman, executive director of MoveOn.org, an Internet issues organization with more than two million members.
Also participating in the news conference were Joseph Cirincione, director of non-proliferation studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Richard Torgerson, a principal with Progressive Asset Management in Maryland and a leader of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities, and several military families.
The ongoing campaign for censure of the President is led by Win Without War, a national coalition of 42 membership organizations, and MoveOn.org, True Majority, Working Assets and Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities. Richard Torgerson, a financial services executive in Maryland, represented Business Leaders and unveiled their new print ad, which will run this week in The New York Times.
Cirincione is an author of the Carnegie Endowment's critical study on the Bush Administration's distortion of intelligence and other evidence leading up to the war. Entitled "WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications," it found that Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons programs "did not pose an immediate threat to the United States," or to regional or global security. It also said "there was and is no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."
"The President and the Administration systematically misrepresented the threat from Iraq," Cirincione said. "President Bush didn't have the facts, so he made them up."
"We are honored to be joined in our nationwide campaign for accountability by a growing number of families whose sons and daughters have served or are serving our nation in uniform," Andrews said. Mildred Mortillo, whose son is serving in Iraq, accompanied Ms. Niederer.
Speaking for herself and other military families, Ms. Niederer said: "Our message to Congress today is clear: spare us the platitudes, the pious rhetoric, the empty slogans. Give us the truth. Do your job and hold those accountable who have denied us the truth. Censure President Bush for the deceptions and manipulations that led our nation to war. You owe the American people, my son and all those patriots who have sacrificed for their nation no less."
SOURCE MoveOn.org; Win Without War
-0- 03/17/2004
/CONTACT: Jessica Smith, Trevor FitzGibbon, or Kawana Lloyd,
+1-202-822-5200, all for MoveOn.org/
/Web site: http://www.MoveOn.org/
*** end of story ***
(COMTEX) B: Spain's incoming leader: Iraq pullout may spark int'l debate ( EFE )
Madrid, Mar 17, 2004 (EFE via COMTEX) -- Incoming Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said Wednesday he hoped his decision to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq would lead to an international debate on how best to fight terrorism.
During an interview with a local radio station, Zapatero said he would make good on his campaign promise to bring the soldiers home unless the United Nations took charge of the operation, adding that his position on the matter was "clear and firm."
The results of Sunday's election also gave Zapatero's Spanish Socialist Workers Party, or PSOE, 164 parliamentary seats, compared to 148 for the Popular Party, or PP.
In Spain "there has been a break in our consensus on foreign policy" that started because "all of the previous government's decisions regarding Iraq were made unilaterally, (ignoring the will) of the people," Zapatero explained.
"The occupation is a fiasco. There have been almost more deaths after the war than during the war," he said. "The occupying forces have not allowed the United Nations to be in control of the situation."
"I will explain my position to our allies, the United States and the United Kingdom, ... so that the position of this democratic government is respected, as I respected that of the previous administration to be at war and to send troops," he said.
Moreover, Zapatero said he thought his announcement "could be useful in opening a debate on the most effective means of combating terrorism."
In his opinion, "fighting terrorism with bombs, with operations of 'shock and awe,' with Tomahawk missiles, that does not combat terrorism. It only generates more radicalism, more people who may be tempted into violence."
"Terrorism should be fought with the rule of law, with international legislation, with intelligence services," he added.
Zapatero also recalled that during his campaign he urged Spanish voters to "be a step ahead of the United States for once," referring to hopes his electoral win would be followed by a victory by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry over President George W. Bush in November.
jcz/kb/mc
http://www.efe.es
Copyright (c) 2004. Agencia EFE S.A.
-0-
*** end of story ***
A fraying truce on ethics charges
Democrats torn over probing GOP
By Charles Babington and Dan Morgan
washingtonpost.com
Updated: 12:07 a.m. ET March 17, 2004
A seven-year ethics truce between congressional Republicans and Democrats has begun to fray under the weight of mounting alleged abuses by House GOP leaders and tensions among Democrats over how aggressively to pursue the matters.
Some Democrats and outside groups think the reported wrongdoings have reached a critical mass that cries out for investigations and reforms. Democratic leaders, however, are wary of breaking the long cease-fire that has protected both parties from the types of ethics charges and countercharges that roiled Congress and toppled two speakers in the 1980s and '90s.
Central to the debate is the House ethics committee, largely dormant since the unwritten truce took effect but rousing in recent days to defend itself against the rain of criticism. Watchdog groups are demanding that the secretive panel show more vigor in pursuing published reports of questionable behavior by lawmakers, and they want an end to the House-approved 1997 rule that bars ethics inquiries based solely on complaints from outsiders.
Top lawmakers under scrutiny
Some Democratic activists also are seething, convinced their elected officials are letting Republicans flout ethical standards in ways that were unthinkable when the GOP took control of the House in 1994. Republicans had attacked the entrenched Democrats' abuse of the House bank and post office and vowed to end Congress's "cycle of scandal."
The recent allegations touch top lawmakers, including House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and several committee chairmen. They involve suggestions of bribery and threats on the House floor, illegal use of campaign funds, misuse of a federal agency for political purposes, conflicts of interest, and strong-arm tactics against lobbyists and campaign contributors.
Yet prominent Democrats, such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) -- who this month decried "the fraying of the moral fiber of what goes on here" -- have repeatedly declined to press ethics charges or make them a political priority. Pelosi said she does not think leaders should bring ethics charges against lawmakers from the opposing party.
Bipartisan discontent
Outside Congress, some Republicans have joined Democrats in expressing mounting dismay over inaction in dealing with alleged ethics abuses.
"The ethics oversight process in the House is completely paralyzed," said Trevor Potter, a Republican and appointee of the first Bush administration who heads the Campaign Legal Center.
Several analysts and academics say the House must change its self-policing practices, perhaps by having former lawmakers or judges help screen cases or suggest sanctions.
Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), however, thinks the ethics process "works well," and he sees no need to respond to critics, said his spokesman, John Feehery. DeLay, the second-ranking House Republican, has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and accuses political enemies of raising trumped-up charges.
The House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct -- which was in the thick of cases that led to the resignation of Speaker Jim Wright (D-Tex.) and later the political wounding of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) -- last week defended itself against charges it has been a do-nothing panel. In a four-page letter to House members, Chairman Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and ranking Democrat Alan B. Mollohan (W.Va.) said, "We are fully committed to pursuing any credible claim that a member or staff person has violated any provision of the House rules." Those rules require, among other things, that members and staffers conduct themselves "in a manner which shall reflect creditably on the House."
In the past seven years the committee has undertaken "informal fact-finding" missions 18 times, the letter said, and "a number of them are ongoing." Most cases were closed with no public indication that anything took place, the letter said.
In a sign that it may pursue some of the pending cases further, the committee last week asked for an equal number of House Republicans and Democrats to be named to a "pool" that can be tapped for investigative subcommittees. In keeping with committee traditions, Hefley declined to say which cases, if any, are being actively pursued.
The 'ethics truce'
As for the so-called ethics truce, the committee letter says one briefly existed in 1997 but officially was lifted at the end of that year, which was particularly bitter in terms of partisan accusations. The committee fined and reprimanded Speaker Gingrich, who had led the ethics charge against Wright. Leaders of both parties, fearing the House was verging on an endless round of partisan retaliations, agreed to a cease-fire.
Many lawmakers in both parties say that, in practice, the ethics truce continues. Last week's Hefley-Mollohan letter acknowledged that House members may be refraining from filing legitimate complaints for fear "of retaliatory complaints against members of their own party."
Several Republican senators also are subjects of ethics complaints, and news stories have focused on conflicts of interest by Democrats in both bodies. But the ethics issue is especially poignant for House Republicans, who won a majority in 1994 after campaigning on a "Contract With America," in which they vowed "to restore accountability to Congress."
Former House majority leader Richard Armey (R-Tex.), an architect of that victory, says his party has lost its moral high ground. "The Republican majority began with the whole reform movement, going after the House bank and all that," he said. "We were great reformers, we were going to have the ethical standards." Today, he said, "it's not a very pretty picture with the House."
Since 1997, the House ethics panel has remained quiet as:
• A Texas grand jury began investigating a political action committee set up by DeLay.
• Several newspapers described how officers of Kansas-based Westar Energy wrote memos about steering $56,500 to GOP campaigns in return for legislative help from DeLay and Reps. W. J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.). Barton later sponsored a legislative exemption sought by Westar, but it eventually was dropped.
• The Washington Post reported that Blunt, the House's third-ranking Republican, tried to slip a last-minute provision into a bill to help a tobacco company for which his son lobbied. Blunt said the measure was meant to combat cigarette smuggling, but a Hastert aide removed it.
• Common Cause, the public watchdog group that helped topple Wright, called for an ethics probe after the Post reported that aides to Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, told a trade group that a congressional probe might ease if the group replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican.
• The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy21.org, public interest groups, charged DeLay's charitable children's organization is improperly soliciting large donations from special interests to finance lavish parties at this summer's Republican National Convention. DeLay says the charity is legal and proper.
Watchdogs barking
These and other accounts prompted a March 2 news conference in which eight watchdog groups denounced the reported behavior and demanded reforms.
"Rather than change the regime and create a rigorous ethics system as promised, Republicans over the last 10 years have eviscerated the ethics process," said Tom Fitton, president of one of the groups, the conservative Judicial Watch.
Some Democratic loyalists say their party leaders, not outside groups, should make such arguments.
"Why the Democrats are not instigating a full-scale ethics investigation is beyond me," said Leon Billings, a former U.S. Senate staffer and Maryland legislator.
Hefley says one ethics committee tradition -- rarely announcing that an inquiry has been started or finished -- can lead to the false impression that the panel has done nothing on a given issue. "It is a problem," he said. "We can't even really defend ourselves."
Critics say the panel's secrecy is a convenient dodge, making it almost impossible to know when the committee has bothered to take even a cursory look into accounts of possible misconduct. The Oxley-lobbyist episode was reported more than a year ago, they note, and the Blunt-tobacco case was reported nine months ago, yet the committee has said nothing publicly about them.
Last month, under pressure from House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), the committee announced that on Dec. 8 it had quietly "initiated informal fact-finding" into statements by Rep. Nick Smith (R-Mich.). Smith said GOP colleagues had tried to bribe and threaten him into voting for a major Medicare prescription drug bill on Nov. 22. He declined to name the members.
Hastert has said he neither threatened nor bribed Smith during the extraordinary three-hour roll call. Last week, however, he told reporters that he repeatedly pleaded with the congressman that night, begging for his vote. "Probably most of his conversations on the [House] floor were with me," Hastert said. But he said no one from the ethics committee has interviewed him about the Smith case, raising questions about how thorough or prompt the panel's three-month-old inquiry might be.
DeLay in storm's eye
Several of the recent ethics controversies center on DeLay, an aggressive, energetic lightning rod for admirers and detractors alike.
Veteran public-disclosure advocate Fred Wertheimer, who now heads Democracy21.org, is calling for ethics committee and Internal Revenue Service investigations into DeLay's charitable organization, Celebrations for Children Inc. The charity's fundraising brochure seeks donations of up to $500,000, which would entitle the contributor to a "private dinner" with DeLay and his wife, tickets to Broadway plays, a golf tournament and other events associated with the Republican National Convention this summer in New York City.
Wertheimer said DeLay is "flagrantly misusing a purported 'charitable' organization for his political purposes and to finance his political operations" at the convention.
DeLay spokesman Stuart Roy said Celebrations for Children is perfectly legal and at least 75 percent of the money it raises will go to charitable groups helping neglected children in Texas and New York.
Also drawing fire from Democrats and watchdog groups is a political action committee closely tied to DeLay: Texans for a Republican Majority, or TRMPAC. An Austin-based grand jury is looking into allegations that TRMPAC illegally used corporate funds to help Texas GOP candidates in 2002. Among those subpoenaed is Danielle Ferro, DeLay's daughter, who was paid by TRMPAC to organize events.
Prosecutors are asking whether TRMPAC laundered $190,000 in corporate donations through the Republican National Committee. Texas law bars PACs from using corporate donations to help individual candidates. Also, outside money and gifts are barred from the race for the Texas House speaker, a focus of TRMPAC's efforts.
Prosecutors have cited documents showing that TRMPAC spent about $400,000 in corporate contributions on political consultants whose work they say was prohibited. DeLay and other Republicans say the services were legal because they did not go directly to GOP candidates. They accuse a Democratic prosecutor of using the grand jury for political purposes.
Researchers Lucy Shackelford, Madonna Lebling and Meg Smith contributed to this report.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4542913/
(COMTEX) B: Medical Savings Insurance Company Sues Florida Hospitals Florida Hospitals Fix Prices, Inflate Prices, and Violate Federal Antitrust Laws, Lawsuit Charges ( PRNewswire )
TAMPA BAY, Fla., Mar 17, 2004 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Florida hospitals, in violation of United States Antitrust laws, have engaged in a widespread "conspiracy" to artificially and unlawfully inflate prices to "exorbitant" levels to consumers, resulting in extraordinary growth in profitability to these hospitals.
That is the most serious charge in a federal lawsuit filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Ft. Myers Division) by Medical Savings Insurance Company, an Oklahoma Corporation.
The suit also alleges that Florida hospitals are engaging in a coordinated and illegal group boycott against Medical Savings Insurance Company because the company has refused to collaborate in the hospitals unlawful pricing schemes.
Randy Suttles, president of Medical Savings Insurance Company says, "We have a contractual obligation to our policyholders not to pay more than what the hospitals are entitled to, and that is a reasonable value for goods and services, something courts have agreed with, time and time again."
Alan Nisberg, Esq., Medical Savings' Florida legal counsel filing the suit, provided some background. "In 2003, the State of Florida obtained a judgment against HCA for alleged violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practice Act and United States Antitrust laws. Florida's Attorney General brought that action asserting that HCA's anti-competitive conduct resulted in consumers being deprived of open market price competition. That action was brought in the very same federal court in which Medical Savings is now seeking injunctive relief and monetary damages against HCA and others."
Nisberg continued, "In a dispute last year between BayCare Health System and Blue Cross and Blue Shield's Health Options, a state-approved dispute resolution system found Health Options' payment of Medicare rates plus 20% to be reasonable. Medical Savings pays more than that. We intend to show that the hospitals named in this lawsuit, together with their trade association, the Florida Hospital Association, have been engaged in an unconscionable scheme of price fixing, forcing unreasonable prices upon Florida consumers."
In recent months, consumer groups and media reports have documented many of these alleged abuses by the hospitals. The Miami Herald, The Ft. Myers News-Press, Orlando Sentinel, Naples Daily News, Ft. Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel, and The Wall Street Journal have all carried stories on the high prices charged to those without insurance. Hospitals generally charge the uninsured three to five times what insurance pays for the same care.
HCA, Inc., which owns the greatest number of hospitals in Florida, is currently boycotting Medical Savings Insurance.
Underscoring the conspiracy charge, the complaint shows the closeness of the relationship between HCA and the Florida Hospital Association (FHA), a trade association helping to coordinate the boycott. Many of the current FHA Board of Trustee positions are held by high-ranking employees of HCA.
In a February 21, 2003, newsletter the FHA wrote, "If your hospital has taken legal action against (Medical Savings) or a patient insured by (Medical Savings) and you would like to work with other hospitals taking legal action, please e-mail Kim Streit and she will coordinate the sharing of information between the various parties."
Since then, other hospitals have joined the boycott.
Randy Suttles said, "This is more than a dispute between an insurance company acting on behalf of its policyholders. This is a fight for affordable health care for hundreds of thousands of Floridians -- many of whom are minorities, who cannot afford health insurance -- but as a class should not be singled out by profit hungry corporations."
The lawsuit is asking that the court find the hospitals named in the suit in violation of Federal anti-trust laws, guilty of conspiracy in driving prices to exorbitant levels, and guilty of participating in an illegal boycott of Medical Savings Insurance Company.
In addition, the lawsuit asks the court, among other things to enjoin the hospitals from arbitrarily setting prices at levels that have no reasonable relationship to the costs of goods and services and end the unreasonable or discriminatory amounts charged to patients.
Medical Savings Insurance Company promises the court it will direct any punitive damages awarded to a fund to help defray the costs of hospital care for uninsured patients in Florida who cannot to pay their own medical bills.
Medical Savings Insurance Company is licensed in 35 states and offers Health Savings Accounts to individuals.
Broadcast media: Beta footage of MSIC executive and legal counsel interviews and other background materials available upon request -- please go to our website at http://www.medicalsavings.com/flantitrust for a preview.
CONTACT: Kathy Maiville of Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, +1-813-281-1900, ext. 227, for Medical Savings Insurance Company.
SOURCE Medical Savings Insurance Company
CONTACT: Kathy Maiville of Butler, Pappas, Weihmuller, Katz, Craig, +1-813-281-1900, ext. 227, for Medical Savings Insurance Company
URL: http://www.medicalsavings.com/flantitrust
Copyright (C) 2004 PR Newswire. All rights reserved.
-0-
*** end of story ***
(COMTEX) B: House GOP Splits With Senate on Tax Cuts ( AP Online )
WASHINGTON, Mar 17, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Republicans worked Wednesday to push through a bill curbing spending increases but not tax cuts, presaging an election-year fight with the Senate over whether to thwart President Bush's push for more tax reductions.
The legislation before the House Budget Committee would require lawmakers to find spending cuts to pay for any boosts in benefit programs like Social Security - but not for tax cuts. The Senate version of the provision would require budget savings for both spending increases and tax cuts.
The House measure follows the strong wishes of the White House and Congress' GOP leadership, who want to limit spending but leave their drive for lower taxes unfettered despite record federal deficits.
"The real challenge to the deficit long-term is controlling the spending side," said House budget Chairman Jim Nussle, R-Iowa.
Democrats say it is ludicrous for the restrictions to ignore tax reductions, arguing that the $1.7 trillion in 10-year tax cuts Bush has won as president have been a major reason for soaring budget shortfalls.
"It's a veiled, cynical attempt of trying to pretend like you're being fiscally responsible, but without having to make the hard choices," Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., said of the GOP plan.
A Democratic effort to impose the restrictions on tax cuts as well was rejected by a party-line 24-18 committee vote.
The panel also was expected to adopt a $2.41 trillion budget for 2005. The fiscal outline envisions lower spending, smaller tax reductions and faster deficit reduction than Bush has proposed, a testament to GOP worries over political fallout from soaring federal shortfalls.
The budget would hold most domestic programs to the same levels as last year and give Bush the boosts he wants for defense and domestic security. It would also allow $138 billion in five-year tax cuts while claiming to halve this year's expected record $477 billion deficit in four years, a year quicker than Bush proposed.
The budget panel's meeting was a continuation from last week, when it failed to finish its work after committee Republicans demanded legislation controlling spending.
Last week, Democrats and four moderate Republicans prevailed as the GOP-led Senate voted to require budget savings to pay for both benefit increases and tax reductions.
The move to require budget savings was prompted by expectations that this year's deficit will reach an unprecedented half trillion dollars, just three years after huge surpluses were projected indefinitely. Many Republicans worry that could be a liability with voters come November's presidential and congressional elections.
The dispute is crucial because Bush has proposed $1.3 trillion worth of tax reductions over the next decade, mostly to keep tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 from expiring. The cuts are among his paramount domestic priorities, but it seems unlikely lawmakers would be able to find enough spending cuts in the budget to pay for them.
With such high stakes involved, the fate of the effort to require budget savings for spending increases or tax cuts is uncertain.
The prospects for House passage are unclear because some Republicans from other committees object to intrusion on their jurisdiction. Other Republicans say Nussle's plan does not go far enough.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht, R-Minn., a member of the budget panel, said he wanted future tax cuts - beyond the extension of the expiring ones - to be subject to the requirement for savings because the government will need revenue.
It is also unclear that the House and Senate will ever be able to resolve their differences over whether tax cuts should be exempted.
The Senate measure would let tax cuts or spending increases go unpaid for if 60 of the 100 senators vote accordingly.
Under the House plan, benefit programs would be automatically cut across-the-board if increases for those programs were enacted but not paid for.
The House bill also sets gradually growing annual spending caps, through 2009, on the one-third of the budget that covers agency expenditures, spending Congress must approve every year.
By ALAN FRAM
Associated Press Writer
Copyright 2004 Associated Press, All rights reserved
-0-
*** end of story ***
PSSST! -- Coast to Coast AM, Tonight, 2-5a ET, 1-4a CT, 11p-2a PT (starting in about 10 minutes):
Lauren Weinstein (vortex.com) created the PRIVACY Forum in 1992, and has been involved with Internet and other technology concerns for the past 30 years. He will be discussing privacy issues, voting machines, and tracking technology. Related Link: pfir.org
holy spit, zit, talk about 'raging' -- what in heck are you smokin'!? -- geesh . . .
dubya's ads that I've seen are vapid, unreal and clearly intended to manipulate, i.e., they're nothing but bs and lies -- in one I saw this evening he actually claimed credit for reducing the cost of healthcare -- I tell ya, that's gonna be one tough act to keep afloat, under fire, for another 7-1/2 months -- if anyone's numbers are going to be slowly collapsing going into the conventions, it'll be his, not Kerry's
and that is quite the nice little Hillary fetish you've got going on there -- hang in there, you'll probably get your chance in 2012, lol
My Dime -- a most interesting comment from that piece:
They have suffered a grievous blow, and it was crazy to go ahead with an election a mere three days after the Madrid massacre. (emphasis added)
I think Brooks may have revealed just a wee bit more about his true agenda than he really intended with that one -- and in a piece touting his own wishful thinking re how we invaded Iraq to bring democracy to Iraq, no less