Changing Places

I.R.S. Request for More Terrorism Investigators Is Denied
The Bush administration has scuttled a plan to increase by 50 percent the number of criminal financial investigators working to disrupt the finances of Al Qaeda, Hamas and other terrorist organizations to save $12 million, a Congressional hearing was told on Tuesday.

The Internal Revenue Service had asked for 80 more criminal investigators beginning in October to join the 160 it has already assigned to penetrate the shadowy networks that terrorist groups use to finance plots like the Sept. 11 attacks and the recent train bombings in Madrid. But the Bush administration did not include them in the president’s proposed budget for the 2005 fiscal year.

The disclosure, to a House Ways and Means subcommittee, came near the end of a routine hearing into the I.R.S. budget after most of the audience, including reporters, had left the hearing room.

It comes as the White House is fighting to maintain its image as a vigorous and uncompromising foe of global terrorism in the face of questions about its commitment and competence raised by the administration’s former terrorism czar, Richard A. Clarke, and its first Treasury secretary, Paul H. O’Neill.

Representative Earl Pomeroy, a North Dakota Democrat whose question to a witness about one line on the last page of a routine report to Congress prompted the disclosure, said he was dumbfounded at the budget decision.

“The zeroing out of resources here made my jaw drop open,” Mr. Pomeroy said. “It just leaps out at you.”

“There are some very tough questions that have to be answered about why the decision was made to eliminate these positions because going after the financial underpinnings of terrorist activity is crucial to rooting terrorism out and defeating it,” Mr. Pomeroy said.

The White House would not comment directly on the reasons for striking the 80 positions the I.R.S. sought. Claire Buchan, the White House deputy spokeswoman, said that a proposed 16 percent increase in Treasury Department financing to fight both terrorism and financial crimes was enough. The I.R.S. is part of the Treasury Department.

“The president’s budget provides a very robust 16 percent increase that demonstrates his robust commitment” to disrupting terrorist financing, she said.

The proposal would increase such financing to $54.3 million in the 2005 fiscal year from $46.8 million in the current year.

Juan C. Zarate, the deputy assistant Treasury secretary for terrorist financing, said that “the I.R.S. certainly had a clear vision of how they wanted to allocate the funds, but there is a clear balance that needs to happen in the I.R.S., where they have to balance terrorist-financing investigations with other responsibilities, like drug trafficking and, perhaps most important, enforcement of the tax laws.”

“And,” he continued, “the administration has to keep its hand on the pulse of that balance.”

He said not having 80 more financial experts dedicated full time to pursuing terrorists’ funds and disrupting their networks did not mean that no additional I.R.S. agents would be assigned, just that those needed would be drawn from other assignments as needed to pursue terrorist-financing issues.

Normally the budget requests of agency heads like Mark W. Everson, the I.R.S. commissioner, are secret. His request is known only because Congress, since 1998, has required the I.R.S. to submit its budget proposals first to the I.R.S. Oversight Board, a bipartisan volunteer panel of seven financial, management and technology experts that Congress created to monitor the tax agency.

The board appeared before the House I.R.S. oversight subcommittee on Tuesday to make its case for an increase in the I.R.S. budget that is twice the 4.6 percent proposed by the Bush administration. The board said the Bush administration’s plan would result in further deterioration in tax enforcement and warned of a growing tide of tax cheating and attitudes that encourage cheating, especially among young adults.

Representative Amo Houghton, the New York Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, gave 50 minutes to remarks and questions for Mr. Everson, who is widely thought to be under consideration for a senior post in the Department of Homeland Security.

When the time came for the Oversight Board’s presentation, Mr. Houghton said he would allot three minutes.

Mr. Houghton then turned his back to talk to two aides and looked down to read papers for about half of the four-minute presentation by Nancy Killefer, the international management consultant who is chairwoman of the Oversight Board.

The board’s disclosing that the Bush administration had rejected the request for added investigators drew a rebuke from a Republican lawmaker who was instrumental in creating the Oversight Board.

“I do think it’s a little dangerous” for the Oversight Board to be involved in such matters, said Representative Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio.

“We did not select you for your expertise on terrorism,” he added. “I am frankly disappointed the board made this recommendation.”

Mrs. Killefer, a senior executive with the McKinsey consulting firm, then explained that the proposal came from the I.R.S. and that the Oversight Board was saying only that it agreed with the agency and supported its proposal.

Mr. Pomeroy, the lone Democrat to appear at the hearing, said he wanted to know more about the proposal and the reasons it was rejected. “Do we have sufficient resources on this important task?” he asked after the hearing.

“Of course not. If we did we would have heard a lot more about successes in bringing down the global financial underpinnings of terrorism.”

CNN.com - Study: People pick purebred dogs that resemble them - Mar 31, 2004
Study: People pick purebred dogs that resemble them
Wednesday, March 31, 2004 Posted: 10:27 AM EST (1527 GMT)

SAN DIEGO, California (AP) — Those who think purebred dogs look like their owners are barking up the right tree, but matching a mutt to its master is another thing, a study suggests.

Research at the University of California, San Diego indicates that when people pick a dog, they look for one that, at some level, bears some resemblance to them. And when they get a purebred dog, they get what they want.

When given a choice of two dogs, judges correctly matched 25 purebreds with their owners nearly two out of three times. With mutts, however, the pattern went to the dogs.

“When you pick a purebred, you pick it specifically because of how it’s going to look as a grown-up,” said Nicholas Cristenfeld, UCSD professor of psychology and co-author of the study, which appears in the current issue of Psychological Science.

Cristenfeld said mutt owners such as himself make their choice on the spur-of-the-moment at a dog pound, not knowing what a puppy will look like.

Forty-five dogs and their owners chosen at random were photographed separately at three San Diego dog parks. The judges, some 28 undergraduates taking psychology classes at UC San Diego, were shown pictures of the owners and two dogs and asked to match the correct dog with the owner.

Out of the 25 purebreds, there were 16 correct matches and nine misses. For 20 mutts in the study, there were seven matches, four ties and nine misses.

“There is a certain stereotype of person from each breed,” said Tracy Cavaciuti, a French Bulldog breeder in Connecticut.

So what kind of person likes the pop-eyed, pointy-eared, pug-nosed Frenchie?

“Actually, they’re quite trendy and good-looking,” Cavaciuti said, adding that they tend to strut on the streets of New York City’s tony Upper East Side.

Hound people are a different story.

“You can spot them a mile away,” she said. “They’re very doggy.”

A pug named Dewey takes a drink during a monthly meeting of the Toronto Pugalug Club.
How the aristocratic Afghan Hound or the otherworldly French Bulldog resemble their owners is unclear since the study found judges didn’t use any one characteristic to make the matches. There were no significant correlation between dogs and owners on the basis of size, attractiveness, friendliness and energy level when considered separately.

“People are attracted to looks and temperaments that reflect themselves or how they perceive themselves,” said Gail Miller, a spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club. Miller, who has owned several bearded collies, described her “beardies” as gregarious, active dogs.

“I’m definitely like them — very outgoing, likes to have fun and get active,” she said.

Candidate rakes in $3 million at start of 20-city money blitz / Kerry, raising funds in S.F., derides Bush’s economic policies

“I notice that gas is now close to $3 a gallon in California,” Kerry told about 3,000 people at an event dominated by Silicon Valley powerbrokers. “Those are not Exxon prices. Those are Halliburton prices,” he said, referring to the energy company formerly run by Vice President Dick Cheney. “You have to give this administration credit,” Kerry said. “Their approach to the solution for high gas prices is just to make sure nobody has a job to drive to.”

Burn, baby, burn!!!!

Floor Statement of Sen. Daschle on the Abuse of Government Power

Mr. President, last week I spoke about the White House’s reaction to Richard Clarke’s testimony before the 9-11 Commission. I am compelled to rise again today, because the people around the President are systematically abusing the powers and prerogatives of government.

We all need to reflect seriously on what’s going on. Not in anger and not in partisanship, but in keeping with our responsibilities as Senators and with an abiding respect for the fundamental values of our democracy.

Richard Clarke did something extraordinary when he testified before the 9-11 Commission last week. He didn’t try to escape blame, as so many routinely do. Instead, he accepted his share of responsibility and offered his perceptions about what happened in the months and years leading up to September 11.

We can and should debate the facts and interpretations Clarke has offered. But there can be no doubt that he has risked enormous damage to his reputation and professional future to hold both himself and our government accountable.

The retaliation from those around the President has been fierce. Mr. Clarke’s personal motives have been questioned and his honesty challenged. He has even been accused, right here on the Senate floor, of perjury. Not one shred of proof was given, but that wasn’t the point. The point was to have the perjury accusation on television and in the newspapers. The point was to damage Mr. Clarke in any way possible.

This is wrong�and it’s not the first time it’s happened.

If it takes intimidation to keep inconvenient facts from the American people, the people around the President don’t hesitate. Richard Foster, the chief actuary for Medicare, found that out. He was told he’d be fired if he told the truth about the cost of the Administration’s prescription drug plan.

This is no way to run a government.

The White House and its supporters should not be using the power of government to try to conceal facts from the American people or to reshape history in an effort to portray themselves in the best light.

They should not be threatening the reputations and livelihoods of people simply for asking � or answering � questions. They should seek to put all information about past decisions on the table for evaluation so that the best possible decisions can be made for the nation’s future.

washingtonpost.com: Bush’s Secret Storm

President Bush had two big things going for him in this year’s election. He was seen by a majority of Americans as a straight shooter. And he was viewed as the natural leader in the war on terrorism. Now both perceptions are in jeopardy. That explains the ferocity of the White House attack on Richard Clarke.

But the attack on Clarke, the White House’s former anti-terrorism expert, could prove to be the fatal mistake of the Bush campaign. Instead of undermining Clarke’s credibility, the White House has called its own into question.

It is also calling new attention to the administration’s standard operating procedure since Sept. 11, 2001: Do whatever is necessary to intimidate and undercut all who raise questions about the president’s handling of terrorism, answer as few of those questions as possible and keep as many secrets as you can.

White House Said to Agree to Let Rice Testify Publicly

WASHINGTON, March 30 � The White House has decided to allow Condoleezza Rice to testify in public and under oath before the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, an administration official said today, reversing its position that she was prevented from doing so by executive privilege.

Op-Ed Columnist: This Isn’t America

Last week an opinion piece in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz about the killing of Sheik Ahmed Yassin said, “This isn’t America; the government did not invent intelligence material nor exaggerate the description of the threat to justify their attack.”

So even in Israel, George Bush’s America has become a byword for deception and abuse of power. And the administration’s reaction to Richard Clarke’s “Against All Enemies” provides more evidence of something rotten in the state of our government.
Where will it end? In his new book, “Worse Than Watergate,” John Dean, of Watergate fame, says, “I’ve been watching all the elements fall into place for two possible political catastrophes, one that will take the air out of the Bush-Cheney balloon and the other, far more disquieting, that will take the air out of democracy.”

Too cool. Just checked my logs, and apparently someone from CACI visited my site after a posting I made regarding turdblossom!

San Diego has once again gone from mild, beautiful weather to really hot dry days. The Santa Ana conditions are so hard on the plants - and on us. Just when we get used to enjoying our usual lovely days, we get a heat wave that sucks the life out of us, and we all just want to find a cool spot and sit.

I guess in a lot of ways, I’ve been sitting in my cool spot for a long time now. I haven’t been social at all, haven’t really felt the need to work or do much of anything. I suppose a lot of this relates to my mom’s death, and the uncertainty of the situation with my nephew and sister right now. But I am at last feeling the stirrings of that need to do something, to get out again and find work and friendship and interaction with the world as a whole again. My problem, whenever I come to this point, is what direction to follow. Sometimes that direction will come to me, sometimes I have to search really hard for it. Lacking any inner compulsion to move in a particular direction right now, I’m rather like Buddha just sitting under my tree, waiting for life to come to me.

The problem is, I’m sure eventually it will, and I haven’t liked the results of that the last few times it has happened. Events like friends betrayal and the death of others are not ones we have any control over, and it is difficult to trust the world again and let it lead into new journeys. It isn’t a fear really, more, a tiredness of things. Well, perhaps there is a touch of fear, since I feel those tears coming to my eyes again as I write this. The sadness of loss is so great, perhaps I simply don’t want to feel it again - yet there is always loss in life, no matter how hard we try to avoid it, or deny it as some of those most dear to me have done. I miss them a lot. But I know they aren’t coming back, the dead or the living who have decided their own life is far more important than mine to them.

Anyway, it’s spring, time to grow again - and right now, I’m just wilting a bit in the heat.

Making Votes Count: When the Umpires Take Sides

When Katherine Harris had to decide which candidate won Florida in 2000, many people were disturbed to learn she was both the state’s top elections official and co-chairwoman of the Florida Bush-Cheney campaign. This year, that kind of unhealthy injection of partisanship into the administration of a presidential election could happen again.

Ms. Harris’s successor is staying out of partisan politics this year, but other secretaries of state are diving right in. In Missouri, as important a swing state as Florida, the secretary of state has a top position in the Missouri Bush-Cheney campaign. In Michigan, another battleground state, the secretary of state has signed on as co-chairwoman of the Bush-Cheney campaign, and has been supporting an openly Republican voter registration drive.

When international observers monitor voting in new democracies, a key factor they look for is nonpartisan election administration. (A guidebook monitors use instructs that this can be done by the use of either “mainly professional” or “politically balanced” administrators.) This advice is rarely followed here at home. Decisions about voting machines and voter eligibility, and about who has won a close election, are often in the hands of partisan officials. The private companies that are rapidly moving into the elections field have political ties as well. To remove the appearance, and perhaps the reality, of bias, this culture of partisanship in election operations should be dismantled.

In most states, the top election arbiter is a secretary of state who ran for office as a Republican or Democrat. While some try to carve out a more independent identity once in the job, many are actively involved in electioneering for their party, or in their own campaigns for higher office. West Virginia’s secretary of state, who has installed a new statewide voter database and made important decisions about what voting machines the state will use, is running in his state’s Democratic primary for governor. Ohio’s secretary of state, who has been overseeing the purchase of new machines in his state, is also running for governor.

Many of the decisions secretaries of state make have the potential to change an election’s results. Purging voting rolls too aggressively, as Ms. Harris did in 2000, can change the party breakdown of the electorate. Not purging voters who are ineligible can, too. Decisions about whether and where to install more reliable voting machines can change the outcome. So can rules about processing new registrations and the location of polling places.

Private companies are playing a large, and growing, role in election administration. This trend has the potential to “professionalize” the system, but unfortunately, most of these companies have hurt their own credibility by getting involved in partisan politics. The chief executive of Diebold, one of the leading electronic voting-machine manufacturers, made headlines when he wrote a fund-raising letter saying he was committed to seeing President Bush re-elected. Other leading companies have, more quietly, abandoned their own neutrality. Accenture, which put together a voter database for Florida and is preparing one for Pennsylvania, is a generous donor to both parties, although it gives about twice as much money to Republicans as Democrats.

The idea of getting the secretary of state out of partisan politics is a foreign one to many states, where the job has always been an elective one. But at the very least, no state official who helps run elections should continue to be involved in political campaigns or other partisan activity. Companies that do this work should not make campaign contributions, and states should not hire them if they do. This country should start holding its election system to the same standards of impartiality that its election monitors routinely apply to others.

:: John Kerry for President - Contribute ::

AlterNet: Industrial Money Laundry-ing
On September 30, 2003, Richard T. Farmer, chairman of the Cincinnati-based Cintas Corp. � the largest industrial launderer in the country � co-hosted a $1.7 million fundraiser for President Bush.

On November 20, 2003, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released new draft regulations that, if adopted, will weaken federal safeguards for employees who handle poison-soaked “shop” towels. The new rule would exempt industrial laundries like Cintas “from federal hazardous and solid waste requirements for shop towels contaminated with toxic chemicals.”

This is no small exemption. Each year, 3.8 billion industrial shop towels, which are used to clean up toxic materials or spills in the workplace, or to wipe-down machinery, are sent to be cleaned.

The Bush Administration’s proposed rollback is particularly worrisome because Cintas has been found to have repeatedly violated worker safety and environmental protection standards.

“We were never told about all the chemicals we were forced to handle, and never really warned about the toxic dangers from these chemicals. The towels were often in plastic bags dripping with solvent. Our supervisors knew all about this,” says Mark Fragola, of New Haven, Conn., a former driver for Cintas Corp.

According to the EPA, the rule will also will lead to higher profits for Cintas. The EPA predicts “this proposal would… save affected facilities over $30 million per year.”

For the record, Cintas and Farmer, are already doing quite well. Cintas made $249.3 million in profits in fiscal year 2003 and Farmer is ranked by Forbes as the 140th wealthiest man in America with a net worth of $1.5 billion.

Farmer is a “Ranger,” meaning that he has personally raised more than $200,000 for the President’s re-election campaign. In addition, Farmer was instrumental in George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign. Not only was he was a “Pioneer” in 2000 (having pledged to raise $100,000), Farmer and his wife gave the second most of any family to the Republican Party in 2000.

Since the 2000 election cycle, Cintas and its employees have given almost $2.2 million to federal candidates and parties, with 100 percent of that money going to Republicans. So far this election cycle, in addition to Farmer, 15 Cintas executives have contributed to Bush, with eight of them giving the maximum $2,000 contribution.

Farmer told the Cincinnati Enquirer in 1997, “I don’t expect any special treatment when I give my money. All I want is decent government.”

What is “decent” government from Cintas Corp.’s point of view? It could be a government that rewrites environmental law to increase their profits, and one that gives them big government contracts. In addition to the EPA draft regulation, Cintas, as the nation’s largest launderer, would likely to have been in line to receive a contract for laundry services from the Department of Veterans Affairs if the VA had proceeded with plans to privatize laundry services at facilities around the U.S. Richard T. Farmer served on Bush’s Veterans Affairs transition team.

But the American Federation of Government Employees, which represents 600,000 federal workers, sent a cease-and-desist letter telling the VA that contracting out the services would be in violation of federal law.

Will Cintas get its way? They have a long history of bullying and silencing their opponents. The public comment period on the EPA rules is open until April 9. Sierra Club, United Students Against Sweatshops and UNITE have joined together to oppose the EPA proposal that helps Cintas Corporation at its workers’ expense. Cintas has sued UNITE for defamation, and sued a shareholder activist to silence his efforts to bring forth shareholder resolutions about Cintas’ labor conditions.

Stories like this that expose the connections between the private gains of corporate America with the political gains of elected officials are all too common in the nation’s capital, and in the Bush White House. Sadly, the health and safety of workers and the protection of our environment could become the casualties.

Neither Silent Nor a Public Witness (washingtonpost.com)
This week’s testimony and media blitz by former White House counterterrorism chief Richard A. Clarke has returned unwanted attention to his former boss, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.

The refusal by President Bush’s top security aide to testify publicly before the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks elicited rebukes by commission members as they held public hearings without her this week. Thomas H. Kean (R), the former New Jersey governor Bush named to be chairman of the commission, observed: “I think this administration shot itself in the foot by not letting her testify in public.”

At the same time, some of Rice’s rebuttals of Clarke’s broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.

MSNBC - Sales soar for bookby former terrorism adviser

NEW YORK - Sales keep soaring for �Against All Enemies,� the book by former counterterrorism adviser Richard A. Clarke that claims the Bush administration did not do enough to protect the country from attacks.

Just three days after publication, the book has gone into its fifth printing, with 500,000 copies in print, according to the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster. �Against All Enemies� ranked No. 1 on Amazon.com as of Thursday afternoon, and both superstores and independent retailers have reported nonstop demand.

�It�s the publishing phenomenon of the year,� Gabriel Voiles, a manager at Coliseum Books in New York, said Thursday. �We cannot keep it in stock for more than two hours at a time.�

USATODAY.com - Anti-Bush books continue to sell
Newsmaking allegations, White House rebuttals and a ready audience for anti-Bush books have helped make Richard A. Clarke’s Against All Enemies a big best seller, publishing officials say.

Against All Enemies, released Monday, had an announced first printing of 300,000 copies and an additional 100,000 already have been ordered, according to the Free Press, an imprint of Simon & Schuster.

“It’s blowing out at our stores,” says Bob Wietrak, a vice president of merchandising at Barnes & Noble, Inc. “There has been phenomenal publicity. The book has been talked about on every talk show and every news show you can think of. Also, he’s an authority. He was there.”
Wietrak says the White House criticisms have only helped the book. Against All Enemies was ranked No. 1 on Amazon.com’s list of best sellers as of Tuesday afternoon and has raised sales for other works attacking Bush, including Kevin Phillips’ American Dynasty and Ron Suskind’s The Price of Loyalty, a collaboration with former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill.

WorkingForChange-A legacy of truth

“We’ve always been manipulated and managed, back to when I began with Kennedy and certainly before, but never to this extent… The secrecy in this administration has reached the highest levels. That’s never been seen before. Everybody has to be on board with this president. Nobody plays devil’s advocate… There is no search for answers in this President.”

“We are truly, truly being denied the information we should have. 9-11 gave it greater impetus. 9-11 instilled in everyone that we have to be patriotic.

“You get out of that by demanding answers: What is terrorism? What is terror? Why did the President try to kill two investigations of 9-11?… If you can’t get to the root of a problem, how can you solve it? There aren’t enough guns in the world to kill hatred.

“How can you want to be a war president? No past president, not even Eisenhower, wanted to be known as a war president.”

“He won’t call on me, and I’m in the back row now so I’m ignored… They don’t like my questions. That’s okay, just so somebody asks them, but they just don’t want me to ask questions… If I was a favored columnist, I’m sure I’d be in the front row again. But I have the prerogative of asking the questions, I do try. “I do think all of us [in the press] have laid down on the job early on [after 9-11]. Some of us are coming out of a coma. But nobody’s being challenging enough. We are adversarial, we aren’t there to worship at anybody’s shrine. We’re there for accountability.”
What, after all these years, keeps her going? “Outrage,” she promptly ssys. “And interest in the world, and knowing that I’m lucky to be alive.

“Maybe we can leave a legacy of truth.” She pauses. “Maybe.”

Assessing the Blame for 9/11

he seminal moment of this week’s hearings on 9/11 surely came yesterday when Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief in the Bush and Clinton administrations, opened his testimony by apologizing to the families whose loved ones died in the terror attacks. The government, Mr. Clarke said, had failed them, “and I failed you.” He added, “We tried hard, but that doesn’t matter because we failed.” It suddenly seemed that after the billions of words uttered about that terrible day, Mr. Clarke had found the ones that still needed saying.
__

Thanks to Clarke for saying what no one in this administration has been man enough to say - we’re sorry. For that alone, he deserves a lot of recognition.

“How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!
The world forgetting, by the world forgot.
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!
Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d;
Labour and rest, that equal periods keep;
“Obedient slumbers that can wake and weep;”
Desires compos’d, affections ever ev’n,
Tears that delight, and sighs that waft to Heav’n.
Grace shines around her with serenest beams,
And whisp’ring angels prompt her golden dreams.
For her th’ unfading rose of Eden blooms,
And wings of seraphs shed divine perfumes,
For her the Spouse prepares the bridal ring,
For her white virgins hymeneals sing,
To sounds of heav’nly harps she dies away,
And melts in visions of eternal day. ”

– Eloisa to Abelard, Alexander Pope

Went to see Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind this evening. Highly recommended… a wonderful film about the desire we all have at one time or another to try to get someone out of our mind, and the hazards of doing so. Having been erased from a few people’s memories, I hope they will see this movie, and perhaps remember that along with all the things you might want to forget about someone, there are many things you will also want to remember. If you just throw out an entire relationship, you lose all the good stuff, too. And unlike in the movies, there isn’t always the opportunity to start fresh. Well worth a viewing, and a lot of thought.

“For thee the fates, severely kind, ordain
A cool suspense from pleasure and from pain;
Thy life a long, dead calm of fix’d repose;
No pulse that riots, and no blood that glows.
Still as the sea, ere winds were taught to blow,
Or moving spirit bade the waters flow;
Soft as the slumbers of a saint forgiv’n,
And mild as opening gleams of promis’d heav’n. ”

“From the full choir when loud Hosannas rise,
And swell the pomp of dreadful sacrifice,
Amid that scene if some relenting eye
Glance on the stone where our cold relics lie,
Devotion’s self shall steal a thought from Heav’n,
One human tear shall drop and be forgiv’n.
And sure, if fate some future bard shall join
In sad similitude of griefs to mine,
Condemn’d whole years in absence to deplore,
And image charms he must behold no more;
Such if there be, who loves so long, so well;
Let him our sad, our tender story tell;
The well-sung woes will soothe my pensive ghost;
He best can paint ‘em, who shall feel ‘em most. ”

My pity to those who cannot hear the loud Hossanas - even of unrequited, forgotten love.

Salon.com News | Richard Clarke terrorizes the White House
You said on “60 Minutes” that you expected “their dogs” to be set on you when your book was published, but did you think that the attacks would be so personal?

Oh yeah, absolutely, for two reasons. For one, the Bush White House assumes that everyone who works for them is part of a personal loyalty network, rather than part of the government. And that their first loyalty is to Bush rather than to the people. When you cross that line or violate that trust, they get very upset. That’s the first reason. But the second reason is that I think they’re trying to bait me — and people who agree with me — into talking about all the trivial little things that they are raising, rather than talking about the big issues in the book.

Why did you write the book now? That’s a question they raise. Did it occur to you that this would be an election year and it would be especially controversial because of that, and that these commission hearings were coming up?

I wanted the book to come out much earlier, but the White House has a policy of reviewing the text of all books written by former White House personnel — to review them for security reasons. And they actually took a very long time to do that. This book could have come out much earlier. It’s the White House that decided when it would be published, not me. I turned it in toward the end of last year, and even though there was nothing in it that was not already obviously unclassified, they took a very, very long time.

Were you seeking to make a political impact, in the way that the White House spokesmen have accused you of trying to do?

I was seeking to create a debate about how we should have, in the past, and how we should, in the future, deal with the war on terrorism. When they say it’s an election year, and therefore you’re creating not just a debate but a political debate, what are they suggesting? That I should have waited until November to publish it, waited until after the election? I don’t see why we have to delay that debate, just because there’s an election.

Vice President Cheney told Rush Limbaugh that you were not “in the loop,” and that you’re angry because you were passed over by Condi Rice for greater authority. And in fact you were dropped from Cabinet-level position to something less than that. How do you respond to what the Vice President said?

The vice president is becoming an attack dog, on a personal level, which should be beneath him but evidently is not.

I was in the same meetings that Dick Cheney was in, during the days after 9/11. Condi Rice and Dick Cheney appointed me as co-chairman of the interagency committee called the “Campaign Committee” — the “campaign” being the war on terrorism. So I was co-chairing the interagency process to fight the war on terrorism after 9/11. I don’t think I was “out of the loop.”
The vice president commented that there was “no great success in dealing with terrorists” during the 1990s, when you were serving under President Clinton. He asked, “What were they doing?”

It’s possible that the vice president has spent so little time studying the terrorist phenomenon that he doesn’t know about the successes in the 1990s. There were many. The Clinton administration stopped Iraqi terrorism against the United States, through military intervention. It stopped Iranian terrorism against the United States, through covert action. It stopped the al-Qaida attempt to have a dominant influence in Bosnia. It stopped the terrorist attacks at the millennium. It stopped many other terrorist attacks, including on the U.S. embassy in Albania. And it began a lethal covert action program against al-Qaida; it also launched military strikes against al-Qaida. Maybe the vice president was so busy running Halliburton at the time that he didn’t notice.

__

Good for Clarke. It’s about time people of his stature spoke up about what’s really going on. Wish there were more people in the administration who were loyal to their country, instead of to the Bush elite.

Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | The perfect storm that’s about to hit
The average nationwide price of a gallon of gasoline in America reached a record high of $1.77 this month. The steady spike in prices has left analysts wondering if this is a harbinger of even more dramatic increases as motorists head into the spring and summer months. Get ready for what might become the economy’s version of the perfect storm later this summer. The devastation could quickly spread to the UK and the rest of the world, with dire consequences for the global economy.

Of course, this must be Clinton and Kerry’s fault - not like Bush’s friendly treatment of the oil industry and their record profits have a thing to do with it…