United States News Digest
Lott Defends Bestial Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners
In an interview with WAPT-TV in Jackson, Miss., Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss), asked about the prisoner abuse at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, said that, "some of the prisoners should not have been prisoners ... [they] probably should have been killed," the Washington Post reported June 3. Lott went further to say, "Hey, nothing wrong with holding a dog up there, unless the dog ate him."
In response to a question about the death of a prisoner apparently after a beating, commented that "this is not Sunday school; this is interrogation; this is rough stuff." This is not the first time that Lott's remarks have gotten him in trouble. Lott was forced to step down as Senate Majority Leader after making what many viewed as racist comments in December 2002. Lott said that the country would have been better off had former Sen. Strom Thurmond, who ran as a segregationist, had won his race for the Presidency in 1948.
GOP Congressmen Fear Bush Coattails in November
Syndicated columnist Robert Novak reported, in his June 3 column in the Washington Post, that conservative Republican Congressmen want Bush to stop talking about his programs on education and on prescription drugs, because it just angers their constituents. When Bush meet with GOP members of Congress in May, he got a very cold response on these issues. While they were home during the recent recess, many Congressmen were asked by their constituents if they, the voters, wouldn't be better off with John Kerry as President, and a Republican majority in Congress opposing him.
If Bush is defeated, Novak forecasts, there will be an enormous internal explosion within the GOP between those diverse forces which are now temporarily held together, by the effort to get Bush reelected. And many Republicans fear that if Bush loses, they may also lose control of the Senate, and perhaps even the House, this fall.
Democrats Encouraged by South Dakota Victory
The narrow victory in South Dakota by Democrat Stephanie Herseth, in the special election to fill the House seat vacated by Bill Janklow, who resigned after being convicted and jailed for a fatal automobile-motorcycle accident, is raising hopes that Democrats could retake the majority in the House of Representatives this fall. The Republicans had sent in their big guns, including Vice President Dick Cheney, First Lady Laura Bush, and House Speaker Dennis Hastert, to campaign for the Republican candidate. The Democrats would have to gain a net 11-12 seats to control the House.
Lyndon LaRouche noted that, whether or not the Democrats are able to accomplish this, and to capitalize on Bush's weaknesses, depends on what happens at the Democratic Convention in July. The only way to revitalize the Party, is for Kerry's advisers and the DNC to permit an open convention, in which LaRouche is a full participant, and in which there is a full policy debate.
No Budget This Year?
Congressional Republicans are considering not passing a budget at all this year. Some in the GOP would rather not deal with a budget that would force them to specify how the tax cuts that President Bush wants to make permanent, would be paid for. There are four Republican hold-outs, joined by most Democrats, who are demanding rules to force Congress to include in the budget, either spending cuts or tax increases in other areas, to offset the cost of any new tax cuts.
An editorial in the New York Times June 3, entitled "Fiscal Shenanigans," says that the voters have the right to know what Federal programs will be sacrificed to pay for Bush's tax cuts. The article, which cites a Tax Policy Center report, also says that the voters have a right to see the whole picture, including the downside. Chances are they won't like the view.
According to the editorial, the programs that would be cut, to offset the tax cut, are Head Start and college financial aid, mainly Pell Grants. Other possible cuts include veterans' medical care, which could be cut by $1.5 billion.
A study put by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities shows that the bottom four-fifths of households (with income below about $76,400) would lose more than they gain. The study shows that it is the top 20% of households that would reap the benefit of the tax cuts.
Army Expands Stop-Loss Program
The Army announced June 2, that, as a matter of policy, that all soldiers in units slated to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan will be required to remain in the Army beginning 90 days before their units deploy, until 90 days after their units return. No soldiers who would be otherwise scheduled to separate or retire will be allowed to leave the Army during that time. The Army said in a statement, as did Lt. Gen. Buster Hagenbeck, the Army's director of personnel, that such a policy is needed to maintain the cohesiveness of deploying units. An Army division typically sees about 4,000 soldiers rotate through, during an 18-month period, about one-third of its strength.
While this so-called stop-loss policy has been in use selectively since 9/11, this is the first time it's been made Army-wide policy, and it comes as the Army is struggling to maintain troop levels in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Army is also activating members of the individual ready reserve, as well, which is made up of those who have left the service and no longer participate in any kind of training. Critics of these actions call it tantamount to a draft, and proof that the Army is too small carry the load that's being put on it. Loren Thompson, of the Lexington Institute, told the New York Times, "The Army is running out of creative ideas for coping with the level of commitment that Iraq requires. It's clear there was a fundamental miscalculation about how protracted and how intense the ground commitment in Iraq would be."
Former Army captain Andrew Exum, in an op-ed published in the Times June 3, blasted the new policy, writing that "Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld continues to claim that the military, as now structured, can meet the needs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is simply wrong, as the Pentagon's actions make clear."
Rumsfeld Won't Get His 'Blank Check'
Senate Appropriations Committee chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) slammed the door shut on the Bush Administration's desire for "complete flexibility" on the $25 billion in supplemental money it is asking for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The original request, sent up on May 12, asked for discretionary authority for the Pentagon to spend that $25 billion as it sees fitalthough it says that the money "may" be spent on various items including operations and maintenance expenses incurred by the military services. During a June 2 hearing of the Senate Defense Appropriations subcommittee, Stevens expressed the fear that the Democrats would look at the request and label it a "blank check." He told the Bush Administration witnesses that "I don't like the word 'may.' I'm going to change it to 'shall' use these funds for the designated purposes...." to which Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WVa) expressed enthusiastic support. Lawrence Lanzilotta, the Pentagon's acting comptroller, when pressed by both Stevens and Byrd, expressed no opposition to the change in wording.
Within hours of Stevens' rewording of the request, the Senate unanimously attached authorization language to the fiscal year 2005 defense authorization bill designating how the $25 billion is to be spent.
Cheney Stumps for Patriot Act
Perhaps because of the embarrassing division within the Bush Administration over Attorney General John Ashcroft's warning last week that a terrorist attack on the U.S. was highly likely before the November elections, Vice President Dick Cheney did not repeat his own prediction to that effect, when he spoke in Kansas City, Mo., to promote the Patriot Act, on June 1.
Cheney boasted that 9/11 created "an entirely new era," and claimed the U.S. had gone on the offense and overthrown regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq. And, showing his beast-man face, Cheney declared: "This nation will never go back to the false comforts of the world before 9/11."
The primary theme of his speech was to defend the Patriot Act and to demand its renewal, as well as throwing in some attacks against John Kerry for his supposed opposition to the act, after having voted for it.
Cheney bragged that "we have dismantled terrorist cells in Oregon, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia"although, as EIR (March 26) has shown, none of these cases involved any acts of terrorism against the United States. Cheney also blustered that, "we have charged over 300 people in terrorism-related investigations," and that "more than half of those charged have been convicted or pled guilty." But the truth is that most of these "terrorism-related" cases involved petty, non-terrorism offenses," with the average sentence being 14 days.
"Every morning in our briefings, the President and I are reminded that the terrorists are still with us, still active, still out there, the threat is still very real," Cheney ranted. "The Patriot Act has been used effectively and responsibly. And it must be renewed in full."
Perhaps knowing the extent of the bipartisan opposition, Cheney did not even mention the various "Patriot II" provisions that are quietly making their way through Congress at this moment.
Soros: Not After Bush, but 'Sinister Forces' Behind Him
Moneybags and drug-promoter George Soros told the June 1 USA Today: "I don't have a vendetta [against President Bush]. He's a figurehead and was elected as a public face. He fills a role. It's the forces behind him that I consider to be sinister," including Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
But, Soros admits that his spending has become a liability. By rousing conservative GOP donors to the challenge, he admits: "I probably raised more money for Bush than against him." He didn't comment on how his corruption of the Kerry campaign contributes to a Bush reelection.
Soros further discloses that in Summer 2003, he invited some leaders of several liberal groups to his Long Island estate to outline plans for the Presidential election. Since then he has given or pledged $10 million to America Coming Together (ACT), $2.6 million to the MoveOn.0rg Voter Fund, and $3 million to the Center for American Progress (CAP), a think tank founded by former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta. All of which work against Bush, but not directly with the Democratic Party.
|