Newsroom-l Public Journal

Secret Service subpoenas Indymedia

ACLU Criticizes Secret Service Investigation of News Website That Posted RNC Delegates' Names

ACLU is Defending Web Host and Others Sought Through Grand Jury Subpoena

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Emily Whitfield, ACLU
August 30, 2004
(212) 549-2566 or 2666

NEW YORK - In a letter sent today in response to a grand jury subpoena issued by the Secret Service, the American Civil Liberties Union and the New York Civil Liberties Union said they are representing a web hosting service and administrators of an independent media website regarding the anonymous posting of publicly available information about delegates to the Republican National Convention.

The groups said the investigation is but the latest example of government agencies using law enforcement powers to chill free speech and intimidate protesters.

"This type of investigation is really a form of intimidation and a message to activists that they will pay a price for speaking out," said ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson. "The posting of publicly available information about people who are in the news should not trigger an investigation. Indeed, if the mere posting of the delegates' name is cause for alarm, then the Secret Service should be investigating the many Republican websites where the same kind of information is available."

Beeson added that the posting did not include anything remotely threatening, but involved political speech fully protected by the First Amendment. Indymedia.org is the website of the Independent Media Center, a collective of independent media organizations and journalists.

The ACLU and NYCLU are also defending Calyx Internet Access, a web hosting service for the Indymedia website. Last week, Calyx's president, Nicholas Merrill, received a grand jury subpoena to turn over contact information for Indymedia. Merrill said that he contacted the four men he knew of -- and the ACLU -- upon receiving the subpoena, and the men agreed that Calyx could provide their information because they had nothing to hide. In fact, the men are not responsible for posting the delegate names, and it is not clear who is, because Indymedia has an anonymous posting policy.

In its letter to the Secret Service today, the ACLU provided the e-mail addresses of the four Indymedia administrators --- Matt Toups, Brian Szymanski, Micah Anderson and one man who prefers not to be named publicly -- and advised the agency that they are representing them in any formal or informal questioning of them or Merrill.

In a statement issued today, Toups, a 22-year-old undergraduate at Carnegie Mellon University, said: The right of an author to choose anonymity is an important part of what Indymedia stands for because we work to create a safe space for dissenting views. Unfortunately, the United States is becoming an increasingly repressive and chilling environment for free speech, thanks to government harassment like the recent attempts to question Indymedia and other activist groups in New York for the Republican National Convention.

Beeson said she found it ironic that the Secret Service subpoena said that the men were sought in connection with an investigation of voter intimidation. "The only intimidation taking place here is the Secret Service intimidating people who speak out against the government," she said. Unfortunately, the Secret Service has a very recent history of preventing Americans from exercising their First Amendment rights.

Last year, the ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit against the Secret Service over the agency's practice of forcing activists into remote "protest zones" during Bush administration events, while allowing pro-Bush supporters to remain in close proximity. A judge dismissed the case after the agency insisted that the practice was not a matter of policy and agreed that such a policy would violate important free speech rights protected under the Constitution. The ACLU is still investigating complaints of restrictions against protesters.

In recent weeks, the ACLU and its affiliates around the country have received complaints that law enforcement officials throughout the U.S. have been monitoring activists they believe are planning to protest at major national political events, including the Republican National Convention in New York, which has already drawn hundreds of thousands of protesters.

In Missouri, the ACLU is defending three activists who were subpoenaed as part of an investigation by the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force. The men, who have no history of violent activity, were subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury on July 29, which prevented them from traveling to Boston to protest at the Democratic National Convention as they had planned. For more on that story, go to http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16248&c=282

In addition to Beeson, the five men in today's case are represented by Jameel Jaffer of the ACLU and Arthur Eisenberg, Legal Director of the NYCLU.

The Secret Service subpoena is online at:
http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16330&c=206

The ACLU letter to the Secret Service is online at:

http://www.aclu.org/SafeandFree/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=16336&c=206

Statements from the web host and three of the Indymedia administrators are online here:
Micah Anderson - http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16338&c=86
Nicholas Merrill - http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16332&c=86
Brian Szymanski - http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16331&c=86
Matt Toups - http://www.aclu.org/FreeSpeech/FreeSpeech.cfm?ID=16334&c=86

Other statements:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/feature/display/107119/index.php
http://www.indymedia.org/or/2004/08/111732.shtml

Julian Bond Says GOP Moves to Stifle Black Vote

By Jo Becker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 26, 2004; Page A05

[Excerpts]

In a new report, the NAACP and People for the American Way cite incidents from Florida to Detroit. NAACP Chairman Julian Bond said efforts at intimidation and suppression, once a tool of Democrats in the Jim Crow South, "have increasingly become the province of the Republican Party" as it seeks to counter the overwhelming advantage Democrats enjoy among black voters.

Studies suggest that as many as 4 million to 6 million voters were disenfranchised in 2000, either because registration problems prevented qualified voters from casting ballots or because of errors caused by faulty, outdated technology.

In Florida, the Civil Rights Commission found that black voters were 10 times as likely as whites to have their ballots rejected, a trend also found in other parts of the country.

A Republican state representative in Michigan told the Detroit Free Press that the GOP will have "a tough time" if "we do not suppress the Detroit vote." Detroit is 83 percent black.

In Jefferson County, Ky., the local GOP plans to send poll watchers to Democratic, predominantly black precincts to challenge voters' eligibility.

In many cases cited it is unclear who is behind the incidents. In Maryland's 2002 gubernatorial election, anonymous fliers were distributed in black neighborhoods in Baltimore gave voters the wrong date for Election Day and told them to be sure to pay parking tickets, overdue rent and outstanding warrants.

Unit's Report Supports Kerry's Version

[Excerpt]

By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Navy task force overseeing John Kerry's swift boat squadron in Vietnam reported that his group of boats came under enemy fire during a March 13, 1969, incident that three decades later is being challenged by the Democratic presidential nominee's critics.

The March 18, 1969, weekly report from Task Force 115, which was located by The Associated Press during a search of Navy archives, is the latest document to surface that supports Kerry's description of an event for which he won a Bronze Star and a third Purple Heart.

The Task Force report twice mentions the incident five days earlier and both times calls it "an enemy initiated firefight" that included automatic weapons fire and underwater mines used against a group of five boats that included Kerry's.

Task Force 115 was commanded at the time by retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the founder of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has been running ads challenging Kerry's account of the episode.

A member of the group, Larry Thurlow, said Tuesday he stood by his assertion that there was no enemy fire that day. Thurlow, the commander of another boat who also won a Bronze Star, said task force commanders probably relied on the initial report of the incident. Thurlow says Kerry wrote that report.

Website debunks all Swift boat "truth" claims

http://swiftvets.eriposte.com/

This very well-researched comprehensive site examines all the accusations against Kerry's Vietnam record and provides devastating evidence refuting them. Browse through the very well-organized sections and see for yourself before deciding about any item in this still-hot issue.

Is the Swift boat hoax backfire beginning?

By Jules Siegel

As more evidence pours in that the Swift boats attack ad is a hoax, the damage has yet to be determined. Now that Kerry's fighting back, the whole thing could blow up in the Republicans' faces. In the latest development, William Rood, the other surviving commander of the Feb. 28, 1969 operation, has come out on Kerry's side with resounding force. Meanwhile Ken Cordier, one of the anti-Kerry Swift boat veterans turns out to have been a Bush campaign operative, a member of their Vietnam Veterans Steering Committee until August 19, when his name disappeared from the Bush campaign site.

By removing his name, the Republicans have implicitly acknowledged that the Swift boat 527 is hardly some grassroots, independent uprising. Although the typical voter has already pretty much chosen sides by attacking the ad, Kerry consolidates his image with his base. He shows that he's a tough guy who knows how to throw a punch. He also forces the Bush campaign to the defensive and makes them explain their position over and over again, in the course of which they say things that further anger Kerry's base, such as Racicot's "wild-eyed" comment.

Much of Bush's base will believe the ad no matter what, but many of the persuadables are going to see it as a cheap trick that failed. These voters are the key to the election. If the ad is shown to be a fake and also another nasty Texas-crony and Rove fake, the Bush campaign not only loses a whole line of attack, but is also are wounded with voters it must get in order to win. Bush's credibility with persuadables goes down another big notch. One of his biggest liabilities is that he's perceived to be a liar. He's also looking like a bully. Kerry is showing that he's no wimp. Even when the Swift boat accusers turn to his repudiation of the Vietnam war they will only futher demonstrate his honesty and integrity. A lot of today's voters were on Kerry's side of the Vietnam argument, even if they never heard of him at the time, nor were of voting age. Now they get to see what he said in the most dramatic terms.

If it's proven that the Bush campaign people broke the rules, they won't be able to run the ad at arm's length any more. Kerry will have shown that he can kick Bush in the groin and knock him down. Even if the FEC refuses to take down the ad, Kerry will have had many new opportunities to show that it's a fake, and that it is a Bush trick, not an independent outburst of indignation. When Bush counter-attacks by challenging the pro-Kerry 527s, they will be able to argue that they are pure and innocent. It's kind of difficult to argue coordination when Kerry is on record as saying MoveOn was wrong. It's also a little difficult to explain away a few rich Republicans in Texas by comparing them to the many thousands of MoveOn contributors.

Kerry is now throwing a whirlwind of punches. He's showing that he's a fighter. Bush has little to gain in this, because no matter what he says, the story is always that Kerry was under fire in Vietnam while he was in Alabama being a political playboy. Maybe Kerry's wounds weren't all that serious, but he did shed blood for his country, and he did rescue Jim Rassman, and all his superiors praised him in the richest terms. All the guys in his boat loved him except for one guy he apparently reamed out who has carried a grudge ever since. Are independents really going to take the word of Bush's surrogates over men who were there with him in an aluminum boat under fire?

Let's remember something. Kerry did kill that Viet Cong with the rocket launcher. In the testosterone environment of today's kick-slam politics, that is a key fact in his favor. He has shown that he was a decisive and brutal killer, not a preppie button pusher sending other people's kids to die and be maimed. Pacifists may not find that admirable, but on the unconscious level it has very significant appeal to the rest of the voting public. Schwarzenegger is a Hollywood terminator who played the role all the way to the governor's office. Kerry is the real thing. Never underestimate the political value of sadism.

Maybe the noise machine just shifted to the Kerry side.

Venezuela: The Revolt of the Spoiled Brats continues

"We categorically reject the results," Henry Ramos, spokesman for the Democratic Coordinator, the umbrella of 27 political parties that opposes the government, said in a televised announcement. "They have perpetrated a gigantic fraud against the will of the people." --Quoted today in the New York Times.

I first came across term "The Revolt of the Spoiled Brats" in an email discussion with Al Giordano. To get an idea of what this really means in visual terms, examine these pictures.

Then continue to the rest of this story, where I'll give you my take on what they mean.

For those whose browsers won't load them, there's a huge poster of a picture of a very white sexy model with ample cleavage whose hands appear to be about to open her pants. "Claro que SI," says the headline. "YES, of course." If you get the feeling that it's a bit on the lewd side, I will not try to talk you out of it. Without meaning to defame womanhood, I would say that it looks like an ad for an escort service.

Contrast that with the news photo below of smiling dark-skinned kids surrounded by colorful Venezuelan flags holding a home-made poster that says, "Uhhh... Ahhh... Hugo Chávez ¡No se va!" (Roughly, "Uhhh... Ahhh...  Hugo Chávez Do not Go!)

To me it's prostitution vs. innocence. The opposition mainly consists of people who are customed to getting laid on their clout, not their charms. But the people getting screwed are not the slutty white model, but the innocent kids. The Spoiled Brats never really wanted the referendum in the first place because they knew they didn't have the votes. They just wanted to make noise. Now that the results are in, they want to keep making noise. They will never concede defeat.

It's like those ridiculous exchanges you get into with right wingers when you challenge their facts. They never even acknowledge that you are challenging their facts. They shift ground to some other issue. When you keep trying to get them back to the facts they finally blow up and call you names and then block your email.

Their whole lives are devoted to domination of others in a hierarchy of master-slave relationships. They pay for their right to be the master to those below by being slaves to those above. The only fact involved is power.

If a slave challenges a master, the slave is terminated, whether emotionally (in the case of relatives), financially (relatives and employees) or physically (suppresion by beating, torture, imprisonment or exile, and death).

The Venezuelan opposition prototype resembles the old-line Cuban exile, but Mexico offers a more appealing possible outcome. It's interesting to me that for the most part the Mexican Revolution was able to come to an accomodation with the losers. There was a considerable amount of fighting in the post-revolutionary consolidation period, but as far as I know, there was no massive exodus. The losers soon integrated into Mexican society on new terms.

This is obviously a simplification, as there were many abusive incidents on both sides. The fact is, however, that Vicente Fox came to power as a direct descendant of the blood-crazed religious post-revolutionary guerrillas known as Cristeros and even used their battle cry in his election campaign. The Cristeros were defeated in battle, but they didn't leave Mexico and they weren't ejected. They went on to form Acción Nacional and, eventually, to legitimate particpation in the political process.

I've read a lot of convincing descriptions of the PRI as a pseudo-democracy masking a dictatorship that seem reasonable enough on the surface. They do not take into account the cultural substrate of the Mexican political system that goes back to the days before the Conquest. Democracy doesn't work quite the same way in Mexico as it does in political science text books.

This is a too long and complex a thesis to discuss here. Suffice it to say that Mexico values accomodation over confrontation. "A bad settlement is better than a good fight," they say. They have a practical, earthy attitude toward the distribution of power that reminds me very much of Confucianism. Even the very wealthy recognize these limits. Whether or not the PRI or the PAN administers Mexico, the traditional values of Mexican courtesy and hospitality will always come first. People here know when to let something go and move on to something else.

That's the next lesson that the Spoiled Brats have to learn. Unfortunately, the Bush administration will probably continue financing them to never give up. Even the ultra-liberal American Progress newsletter describes Chávez as "an increasingly authoritarian ruler," but fails to provide a single example of his authoritarian tactics. Authoritarian compared to whom? Chávez brought a whole new way of life to a country that used to be the kind of place where troops routinely massacred peaceful protesters. In 1989, at least 1,000 people are estimated to have died in what became known as the Caracazo. That was just one of the many outrages that have characterized Venezuela's tortured history.

Immediately after their anti-Chávez coup Carmona forces shut down the main democratic institutions, rounded up key Chávez activists, beat many of them up and killed some of them before paratroopers rescued Chávez. Pro-opposition Caracas Metropolitan Police have killed thousands of Venezuelan dissidents over the years, including Chávez supporters they are said to have shot during the anti-coup demonstrations and then blamed on the Chávez side.

The Chávez forces haven't engaged in mass murder. He's allowed the opposition-controlled newspapers and five mainstream TV channels to attack him 24/7 with the filthiest lies and distortions. Contrast that with the pre-Chávez days when Venezuela's newspapers used to appear with large blank spots where government censors had removed articles they didn't like.

The Bush government may be restrained by the way the price of oil fell when the referendum results were announced, but it's not anything Chávez can count on from this ideologically-driven administration. While it's true that John F. Kerry is a member in good standing of the American power elite, perhaps he's absorbed the lessons of the Cuba embargo, and will seek accomodation rather than confrontation with Chávez because he is a very practical politician. In any case, it's time for both Bush and Kerry to abandon the Spoiled Brats and let the people of Venezuela have their own way about running their own country.

Posted by jules_siegel at 10:59 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Anti-drugwar moms attend Bush campaign event

By Erin Hildebrandt, Executive Director
Parents Ending Prohibition

I love my country, and I'm very grateful for the freedoms we all take for granted far too often. This is why it concurrently fills and breaks my heart to witness events, such as Oregon's recent brush with President Bush.

While I care deeply about many of the issues we're all talking about around the water coolers, my own personal cause is medical marijuana. As a patient and a mom, this is the issue that has most deeply touched my life and the lives of my children, and it's the issue to which I can most effectively speak.

Here is some background, for those of you who don't know me. After exhausting every legal option, even experimental surgery, Crohn's Disease left me frequently disabled. Marijuana gave me back my life and gave my kids back their mom. My government believes our tax dollars should be spent conducting dangerous raids on family homes and imprisoning people like me for trying to feel better. This puts my kids in a dangerous situation -- either their mom is disabled and unable to properly care for them, or we risk people with loaded weapons breaking into our home and taking me away. I keep wondering -- what are the odds of no one making a "sudden move", in a house with small kids running around?

This is why, in spite of some challenges, I organized a demonstration to ask President Bush to stop arresting medical marijuana patients. My first hurdle was simply a lack of experience. I'm a small town wife and mom -- not a professional political organizer. My skills lie more in areas of creativity and common sense than in practical experience, which makes running a non-profit organization like Parents Ending Prohibition, and all that entails, a trial-by-fire endeavor.

Fortunately, I have a few folks like Hilary McQuie, formerly with American's for Safe Access, who offer their time and advice along the way. When I called Hilary and explained what I wanted to do, she immediately sent me a big box of signs and literature to pass out, and helped me make plans. She's been my own personal human angel through the whole event, and I'm very grateful to her!

The next problem was finding out where President Bush would be speaking. We sent out an action alert, but had to leave the location "to be announced", until the night before. I found it very odd that the leader of our nation has grown so afraid of being challenged, that he hides from the people he's asking to elect him. The only way to be allowed into this "Ask Bush" event, as he billed it, was to spend time calling people and asking them to vote for him in his campaign offices! I found this obscene and offensive, considering he's supposed to represent and serve all of us, whether we agree with him or not.

On August 12th, we finally ended this maddening game of "where's 'W'aldo", and learned that President Bush would be speaking at both Terminal 6 in Portland in the morning, and Southridge High School in Beaverton at 12:45pm the next day. Bill, my husband and Associate Director of PEP, attended a meeting and training that evening by Indymedia (portland.indymedia.org), for all of the protests against the Bush administrations' policies that were being planned. It was an excellent opportunity to meet with other activists, and he learned a lot about the political environment and legal issues surrounding these kinds of demonstrations in Oregon. As the training was finishing up, people were still undecided about where and exactly when to hold the protests. Bill stepped up and announced that PEP would be in Beaverton at noon, which ended up determining the location for the majority of the demonstrators.

When we arrived in Beaverton the next day, we were a little nervous about what could happen. We'd heard about last year, when police actually sprayed little babies in their faces with pepper spray, putting health care workers in a quandry over how to treat pepper-sprayed infants -- something with which they were previously inexperienced. We didn't expect to have to risk facing any sort of violence, but we kept away from the most contentious areas, just in case. Unfortunately, this also left us without much representation in key areas -- namely, where the news cameras were consistently aimed, which was also where the small number of Bush supporters were gathered.

We were delighted to find that all of the feedback we received from the crowd demonstrating against Bush was very positive. A few people aired concerns over our children holding medical marijuana signs, but seemed to be alright with it, once we explained that our kids know this plant as the medicine that let's their mom bake them cookies -- not as a drug anyone should abuse. Their problem seemed to be a knee-jerk, DARE-generation objection to mixing children and a message that has to do with marijuana. Our perspective comes from wanting to educate our kids from an early age about the importance of assessing risks and benefits, rather than simply teaching them 20 ways to "just say no".

The minute we got there, and people saw that we had extra signs, they started asking for them. While a few people said they had come because of our announcements, many seemed to simply want to make any statement opposing Bush, and wanted to make it with a sign in hand. I'm pretty sure if we'd had "Yes on 33!" or statements about industrial hemp, they'd have taken those signs as well. This was a golden opportunity to get a strong message out about medical marijuana, but Bill and I could only do so much. We were restricted by our small kids, and our need to keep them safe, as well as limitations from simple inexperience. We really could have used a few seasoned reform activists in on this!

Still, all in all, we accomplished some excellent groundwork, got our feet wet by organizing an event, and met some wonderful people. There were two beautiful young women I feel very privileged to have met. One told me about how marijuana had worked so well for her, that she no longer needed it. She felt very fortunate to have been able to take such a safe and effective medicine, and then be able to simply stop taking it when it was no longer needed. For her, a medicine that didn't cause symptoms of withdrawl when stopped was a godsend.

The other lovely lady almost had me in tears! She came up to us all smiles, and tentatively asked if she could have a sign. I gladly gave her one, along with a copy of "Patients in the Crossfire", and she started telling me that her dad is a patient, and that she's a strong supporter of our cause. But the best part was when she called her dad on her cell phone, and exclaimed, "Dad! You'll never believe where I am and the sign I got to hold!" She ended up taking the sign home, so her dad could hang it on his wall, next to his Oregon Medical Marijuana card. My entire investment of time and energy was worth it because of her, alone!

Overall, I felt this was a success. I ended up being interviewed by a KATU reporter, who seemed disappointed that I was able to speak intelligently to our issue. He approached me by quipping that another person with a sign "must have been stoned", because they weren't able to speak with a camera shoved in their face, then became rather patronizing once he saw that I was representing a serious cause with human casualties and human lives billed by Bush as nothing more than collateral damage. I also caught the attention of a reporter from the Oregonian, who was much more real about his questions, but who also was clear that he doubted they could find room to add in my statements for the next day's paper.

The one spot of violence that tarnished the whole event was ironically perpetrated by one of those that were gathered and/or paid to shout out Bush support. Although I didn't witness it, word started spreading quickly through the crowd, that one of the Bush supporters had assaulted one of the people on our side. Bill and I had purposely positioned ourselves well within the crowd, so we wouldn't be vulnerable to this increasingly angry smaller group, but even there we didn't feel safe anymore. Another mom who lived nearby took her kids home and came back, but we felt we'd delivered our message, and since we live an hour away, decided to leave after we heard about the attack.

Watching the KATU news last night, however, was like watching an entirely different demonstration. In their early broadcast, they showed more of our crowd, including a glimpse of my kids and one of our signs, and pictures of the violent Bush supporter being escorted away for her "calming". But by their later broadcasts, all of this was edited, and not one of our signs even made it into the pictures, the pictures of the alleged attacker had been removed, and the whole piece had been sanitized (for our protection?).

What they showed on the late news looked like a large group of Bush supporters, and a small group of demonstrators for our causes, when the reality of the situation was exactly the opposite. I left before everything wrapped up, so I saw the scenes they were video taping from the streets, as well as seeing it up close earlier. There were two very small crowds, I'd say at most 15 people at each one, at the ends of the "Free Speech Zone", and positioned closest to the possible entrances of the motorcade. In between, and filling the fenced off sidewalk, with barbed wire on top of the fence, were at least 200 people demonstrating against Bush. We were pushed behind this barricade, while the only people exhibiting violent outbursts were given preferential treatment at the front of the line.

I was happy with my first attempt to organize an event in our new home state, without having any of my dear allies back in our old home, Maryland, along to advise me. But I need some help from all of the rest of you Oregon reformers, in order to have a bigger impact when Bush comes back, which I believe we can expect him to do, considering we hold 7 electoral votes in this swing state. If you live in, or can get to Oregon on short notice, please sign up today for PEP's discussion list, where we'll announce upcoming actions.

Is Cheney peeved because Kerry stole the "sensitivity" issue from him?

By Jules Siegel

Vice President Cheney and many other administration officials have called for "sensitivity" in anti-terror and military operations. Why is he flip-flopping on the issue when Kerry raises the same point?

Shortly after sneering at Kerry's sensitivity remarks on the Hugh Hewitt Show, Cheney responded to Hewitt's question about the Imam Ali shrine in Najaf, "Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity."

The following collection of references from American Progress clearly demonstrates that far from raising a new (and supposedly ridiculous) idea, Kerry was echoing the standard White House line on sensitivity as a military strategy. You'll find sources for all the statements at "Cheney's 'Sensitive' Hypocrisy"

PRESIDENT BUSH STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN MILTARY AFFAIRS: On 3/4/01, President Bush stressed the need to be "sensitive" in conducting military affairs, stating, "because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence." And just last week, President Bush said, "In terms of the balance between running down intelligence and bringing people to justice obviously is -- we need to be very sensitive on that."

SPECIAL FORCES STATE NEED TO FIGHT "SENSITIVE WAR ON TERRORISM": The Bush campaign's latest salvo, while aimed at Kerry, also is an attack on the military's top special forces commanders. On 7/20/04, the Bush administration sent one of the Air Force's top special forces officers to Capitol Hill to assuage concerns about tactics being used in the War on Terror. In his testimony, Chief Master Sgt. Robert Martens reassured Republican Chairman Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) that "our special operators offer a seasoned, culturally sensitive war on terrorism."

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY SAYS MILITARY MUST NOT BE INSENSITIVE: On 4/13/04, Cheney said the Bush administration was focused on conducting sensitive military operations. He stated, "We recognize that the presence of U.S. forces can in some cases present a burden on the local community. We're not insensitive to that. We work almost on a continual basis with the local officials to remove points of friction and reduce the extent to which problems arise in terms of those relationships."

RUMSFELD STRESSES NEED TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN THE WAR: In the lead up to the Iraq war and afterwards, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised the Pentagon would be "sensitive." On 2/5/03, he said "we have to be sensitive, to the extent the world thinks the United States is focused on the problems in Iraq, it's conceivable that someone could make a mistake and believe that that's an opportunity for them to take an action which they otherwise would have avoided." On 7/9/03, he reassured the public that his department was being "sensitive" to troop needs during the war. He said U.S. commanders are "sensitive to the importance of troops knowing what the rotation plan will be so they have some degree of certainty in their lives. And [they are sensitive to the importance of the quality of their lives."

GEN. RICHARD MYERS SAYS MILITARY NEEDS TO BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR: On 10/31/01, Gen. Richard Myers, Bush's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was asked about whether the military would be "sensitive" to religious issues in prosecuting the War on Terror. He said "We are, I think, very culturally sensitive." On 1/7/03, Myers touted the Army's ability to be "sensitive." He said "we can ask of our troops to go out there and be, on the one hand, very sensitive to cultural issues, on the other hand, be ready to respond in self-defense to a very ticklish situation, all at the same time." On 11/19/03, Myers said U.S. troops "are very sensitive to the balance between appropriate military action and not trying to turn the average Iraqi against the coalition."

GEN. TOMMY FRANKS SAID THE WHITE HOUSE MADE SURE TO BE "SENSITIVE": On 7/10/03, Gen. Tommy Franks went to Capitol Hill to answer questions about the War on Terror. He said the Bush administration explicitly understood the "sensitive" need for the U.S. to continue pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, instead of appearing like it was solely focused on Iraq. Franks said, "Everyone from the president to Secretary Rumsfeld right through me were very sensitive, to be sure, that our operations moved ahead in Afghanistan in parallel with what we were doing in Iraq."

ASHCROFT CLAIMS THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: Attorney General John Ashcroft has repeatedly stressed the need for the Bush administration to be "sensitive" in fighting the War on Terror. On 4/28/03, just a month after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Ashcroft said, "The United States is very sensitive about interfering in the internal politics of other countries." On 3/20/02, he said the Justice Department was making sure to be "sensitive" in hunting down terrorists. He said, "The agents and officers who conducted the interviews did so in a sensitive manner, showing full respect for the rights and dignity of the individuals being interviewed."

CHENEY & LOTT URGE MILITARY TO BE SENSITIVE IN CONDUCTING WAR: In conducting the first war in Iraq, then-Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney repeatedly stressed the need for America to fight a "sensitive" war. On 9/11/90, Cheney told Congress that he "was very concerned about&the clash of cultures" brought on by U.S. troops being stationed in Saudi Arabia, and that the U.S. must "try to be sensitive." Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) concurred, saying, "I would agree to that. I think [the Saudis are sensitive, but we also are sensitive."

CHENEY SAYS PENTAGON MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN DEVELOPING WEAPONS: On 2/7/90, Cheney told Congress that the Pentagon must be "sensitive" in developing weapons. He said that he understood the need for the Pentagon to explore civilian uses of weapons-related technology, saying, "I think we need to be very sensitive to that as a department."

WOLFOWITZ SAYS MILITARY MUST BE "SENSITIVE" IN WAR ON TERROR: On 11/9/01, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, a key hawk on military issues, said the armed forces must be "sensitive" to religious issues surrounding the War on Terror. He said, "I think we've made it clear we're going to be sensitive to the fact that Ramadan is the holiest month on the Muslim calendar and we will have that in mind."

Travus T. Hipp Commentary 8/06/2004

DANGEROUS DRUGS

It is no sudden surprise that leaders are susceptible to the same
temptations as the common folk. Nor is it unusual to find that the rich and
powerful can afford the best when it comes to medicines , even to the point
of abuse. John Kennedy ignored the evidence that amphetamines were major
contributing factor to Hitler’s deteriorating mental state and tactical
failures in WWII. In Kennedy’s case the physical endurance factor combined
with his skirt chasing tendencies led him to join the trendy "Doctor Feel
Good" cult whose favorite indulgence was s shot of meth combined with
vitamin B-12, allowing for marathon sex and the illusion of intellectual
brilliance. ( It should be noted that DefSec McNamara, the author of
Americas adventure in Vietnam, was also known to leave cabinet meetings to
get a shot in the same tiny office later made famous my Monica Lewinsky).
Bobby tried to unhook his brother, both from drugs and Marilyn Monroe, but
Dallas foreshortened that effort.
Continue Reading