ASIA TIMES - Is the US complicit in its own decline.

Global Economy

SPEAKING FREELY
US complicit in its own decline?
By W Joseph Stroupe

China is rising, economically, diplomatically and militarily, to threaten a displacement of the United States as the dominant power in Southeast Asia. Europe is increasingly choosing the course of independence from the US: it currently rivals US gross domestic product (GDP) and is making joint economic and strategic diplomatic agreements with US competitors Russia, China, India, Iran and others, while the US looks on warily.

South Korea is increasingly irritated with the US military presence and diplomatic posture on the Peninsula and is looking ahead to a settlement of the Korean crisis that could significantly lessen, if not eliminate, US presence and influence. Japan likewise is displaying increasing irritation with the US diplomatic posture and military presence in the region and is moving rapidly in the direction of remilitarization, independence and self-assertion, making its own energy-security deals with Iran and Russia over US objections. Taiwan is also becoming more assertive, risking a conflagration with China, and obliging the US to make diplomatic moves toward China, away from longtime ally Taiwan, in an effort to avoid the conflagration, in which the US would most likely be the prime geopolitical loser.

Russia, in the face of proliferating US military presence throughout the traditional Russian sphere of influence, is becoming much more assertive, charting a course often directly opposed to the US. Russia is making strategic economic (oil/gas) agreements and conducting weapons sales in every strategic region of the world, while the US looks on guardedly at Russian political and diplomatic influence on the rise.

The majority of the oil states of the Middle East have adopted a decidedly anti-American stance in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion, and consequently, US influence in the region is suffering a very significant setback. In the past year collective international opposition to the US has been consolidating at the United Nations and within its Security Council, marginalizing and isolating the US internationally. The continuing trends are mostly against the US and are even picking up steam in that direction.

In the face of all these regional and global developments, can the United States maintain its current position of global dominance?

Conventional wisdom says the US cannot be displaced from its position of global dominance any time soon, in spite of the current negative trends noted above. Very confidently, those touting such conventional wisdom proclaim that the United States simply has far too much power to be displaced. However, the track record of conventional wisdom is such that we owe it to ourselves to check the assumptions upon which it is based, to see whether they stand up to scrutiny. If they do, then we will have confirmed for ourselves that US dominance is here to stay for the foreseeable future. But what if those assumptions begin to crumble in the face of a logical and factual analysis? Would you want to continue to subscribe to conventional "wisdom" if it were proved to be based on fragile foundations?

Most, if not all, of the negative trends noted above have come about either directly or indirectly as a result of US hegemony, most often exercised with little sensitivity or concern for the interests of its subjugates. The United States has often acted as if everyone else on the geopolitical chessboard is destined to be a subjugate of it, as the last superpower. However, the US is finding out that those "subjugates" do have options beyond mere passive acquiescence to the will of the global hegemon.

A careful examination of precisely how the US exercises power, where that power derives from, is very enlightening in view of the subject at hand.

'It's the economy, stupid!'
The essence of US global power is its economic wealth. Every other form of its power is a derivative of that wealth. The US has been able to influence all the other players on the geopolitical chessboard because it leads the global economy, and historically, it can therefore greatly reward or severely punish in ways and to an extent that no one else can. This fact endows the US with tremendous political and diplomatic power and influence. It can develop and deploy the most awesome and effective military machine in the world, enabling the projection of its power around the globe - all because it can "afford" it economically while no other nation can. The standard of living and the freedoms enjoyed by its people give the US tremendous social and cultural influence across the globe - all rooted in its economic prosperity. In every way US power derives from its economic capital.

Even the enemy terrorists realize the truth of this. Hence they attacked the very symbolic heart of America's economic power on September 11, 2001, in an effort to damage the real source of US power. If that true source of power is ever spoiled significantly, or if the US economy could be throttled by an outside force, then the last superpower will see a decline in the potency of all its derivative forms of power and influence. As a matter of fact, the evidence strongly indicates that decline is already happening. How so?

It has been correctly noted that oil is the very lifeblood of the industrialized economy. Completely opposite of popular assumptions circa the late 1990s and up until around 2002, during this most recent period in which global oil prices have rebounded and are currently soaring, the US economic engine is still exceptionally vulnerable to oil price shocks. It is now well known and appreciated that in the past 30 years, since the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74, every global oil price "shock" has been followed closely by a US economic recession. The link between the two is indisputable. What applies to the US economic engine also applies to the global economy as well. However, US economic vulnerability to the global price of oil is now significantly greater as compared with the vulnerability of most other economies. How is that true?

The US has been steadily transferring its economic wealth and the power that goes with it to other nations, directly as a result of its enormous debt. The US is frighteningly dependent upon foreign cash inflows to finance its huge deficit. This increasingly places the very solvency of the US economy in foreign hands. The US currently runs an account deficit of 5 percent of its GDP, a record high, which cannot be maintained indefinitely. Crude-oil imports account for a sizable portion of this current account deficit, and become increasingly significant as the global price of oil elevates. An orderly decline of the dollar by about 40 percent, far greater than the overall 8 percent (about 20 percent against the euro) seen so far, would be required to help shrink the dangerous current account deficit. However, such a decline presents a range of other problems that are considerable in their impact and risk.

As the dollar declines, oil producers, which currently price their exports in terms of US dollars, seek to hedge against the lessening of their real profits resulting directly from the dollar decline. They do this by pegging the price of exports to a more stable currency with fewer structural problems, the euro. Evidence compiled by James Turk, founder of Goldmoney.com, strongly indicates they may already have established a de facto but undeclared peg to the euro. As a result, oil producers artificially inflate the price (in dollars) of oil to hedge against a weaker dollar, and that puts increasing upward pressure on the US current account deficit, which puts further downward pressure on the value of the dollar. A vicious cycle has already ensued. The likely effect is an eventual not-so-orderly decline in the value of the dollar. This can have a catastrophic impact upon the US economy and upon the global economy as well.

In fact, the only reason the decline of the dollar has not been disorderly (or even catastrophic) already is the fact that the Asian economies, most notably Japan and China, have so far continued to purchase enormous amounts of US debt in an effort to keep their own currencies from escalating out of control against the dollar. Notably, private investors who formerly purchased US debt have mostly abandoned that practice out of fear of holding too many dollars, and that slack has, so far, been taken up by the Asian central banks. The entire situation for the US economy is very unstable and filled with risk. The fact is that there currently exist so many imbalances, many firmly centered in the US economy, but extending outward to affect the global economy, that no one can say with any authority precisely what all the risks are, or what the future holds, with much accuracy. However, one thing that is certain is that because there exist so many deep structural weaknesses and very considerable risks, the US economy no longer commands the global respect and confidence it once did.

In fact, doubts about the stability and permanence of US wealth are deep and wide. The dollar is in steep decline over concerns about the structural integrity of the US economy. The rest of the economies of the world are increasingly concerned about having their economic security hitched so permanently and intimately to the US economy alone. "The neighbors are beginning to talk" about the need to pursue a course of increasing economic independence from the US. What they are saying is evidence that the formerly unquestioned economic power and earned global trust of the United States is in serious decline.

As everyone knows, economies operate on trust as a foundation. The US foundation is already seriously damaged, as evidenced by global nervousness and fear of a serious, or even catastrophic, US dollar decline. The US is doing very little, if anything, to reassure the world and calm the jitters. In fact, it is continuing to spend itself into an indebtedness "oblivion", spending on hugely expensive domestic programs, on an ever-increasing military budget and on hugely expensive military invasions and nation-building. All the while, deep tax cuts have also been enacted. How much longer can the economic charade continue, while the United States refuses to make needed reforms and to take other required actions to strengthen, rather than weaken, its own economic strength?

US unwittingly participates in its own decline
The United States is helping to create severe problems for itself by participating in the transfer of its wealth overseas, and at the same time, by pursuing a militarized foreign policy that alienates it from traditional friends and allies, and which creates an atmosphere of distrust of its real intentions and its underlying motives. The US is therefore helping to marshal opposition to itself, helping to consolidate such opposition and continuing to give impetus to collective moves on the part of its friends and rivals alike, designed to limit US power and intensify their own. In essence, the US is unwittingly causing the accelerated creation of a multipolar world, where US global dominance is no longer desired, no longer accepted as inevitable. Now, the US is finding that it no longer possesses the influence among the global community of nations that it once had.

The US is also working to undermine international confidence in its economy as it facilitates corporate fraud, a la Enron, WorldCom and many others, seemingly without end. These scandalous, gigantic corporate failures have a serious effect on investor confidence worldwide. There are other places to put one's money, and when such monumental failures occur in the heart of the US economy, investors are forced to hedge their bets, to diversify their investments for fear they will lose everything in the US system. They have already begun to put their money elsewhere, on a large scale. Unfortunately, few in the United States understand, or even see, such trends. But they are continuing briskly, even accelerating, thereby weakening the US economy by undermining international confidence in it.

Strategy to counterbalance the US in motion
While all the aforementioned trends and problems continue apace, certain other players on the geopolitical chessboard are apparently arranging an economic "check" (if not also eventually a "checkmate") of sorts of the United States by controlling the global availability and price of oil and gas. At the center of those efforts is Russia, which is working very diligently to extend and solidify its control over global oil and gas production and transport.

Already Russia is the world's second-largest oil exporter behind Saudi Arabia, with which it has signed a wide-ranging cooperation agreement on crude-oil production. With Saudi Arabia's de facto control over all of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and Russia's growing monopoly over oil and gas production in most of Europe and Asia, the two partners are already in effect controlling the global price of oil by tightly managing production levels. Russia is also making moves to bring Japan under the shadow of dependence upon Russian oil. Rather than building a proposed oil pipeline to northeastern China, Russia has virtually decided to build one to the Pacific coast to serve Japan. This is a wise strategic move on Russia's part. It already has China firmly under its shadow. Now it seeks to bring Japan under the same shadow of energy dependence. Japan has very little choice but to seek oil where it may be acquired, since it must import about 90 percent of the product.

Notably, US oil companies have recently decided that the environment in Iraq, which possesses huge proven reserves of oil, is too unstable for their involvement at present. They will hold off any significant involvement for at least a year. However, the Iraqi Governing Council has already sent strong signals that it is interested in wide-ranging agreements with Russia for oil production and marketing. Ironically, with respect to control of Iraq's oil reserves, Russia appears to be coming out the winner instead of the US. Russian oil companies are poised and ready to come into Iraq in a very large way. But that is not all.

In a strategic move, Russia is now significantly extending its already considerable control over world gas production, engineering a monopoly over that energy resource in addition to its currently growing crude-oil monopoly. Iran has huge known deposits of gas, and Russia has entered into strategic cooperation agreements with Iran to explore, produce and bring to market that resource. Russia and Iran account for at least 49 percent of the world's known gas reserves. Further, Russia and China have very recently signed a strategic agreement with Saudi Arabia for the exploration, production and marketing of its similarly huge deposits of gas. Other Arab oil states will no doubt soon follow suit. The loss of US influence in the region is becoming painfully evident in various ways, not the least of which is its access to energy resources and energy security. Globally, gas is playing an ever-more-important role as oil becomes more expensive and harder to obtain.

If we simply stand back from a distance and observe the clear overall pattern of these energy-resource developments, we can see a distinct and indisputable blueprint emerging. It is a blueprint of economic encirclement of the US by means of an oil/gas monopoly. A monopoly over the very lifeblood of industrialized nations, namely oil and gas, is at the same time an effective throttle on the economic wealth of a nation, even of a superpower.

Often when this subject is brought up, the reader tends to think only in terms of the "oil weapon", where by means of an embargo oil is severely curtailed in an effort to crash the target economy. However, what Russia is engineering for itself is much more sophisticated than that. It is currently more of a tool than it is a weapon. It is a tool that is being used to conduct the massive transfer of wealth, and with it, power and influence from one geopolitical "pole" to another. It is also a tool being used to exploit pre-existing weaknesses in the US economy for the purpose of producing increased instability in that economy and in its currency. It is therefore a lever to power for the one wielding it. Though it certainly has the potential for being used as a weapon in the not too distant future, its current adroit use as a tool is very effective indeed, without the likely violent repercussions if used as a weapon.

Russia and its strategic partners
Is it really a case of Russia deliberately positioning itself at the center of such developments concerning global oil and gas production and pricing, developing and executing a coherent strategy with a global monopoly as the goal, or is it merely a very weak and mostly inconsequential Russia reacting to events and trying to make the most of a very weak position?

The "experts" remind us that any such global monopoly will be short-lived as oil-dependent nations develop alternatives under an environment of high oil prices. Consequently, such "experts" tend to discount severely the existence of any such strategy on the part of Russia, and if such a strategy does exist, they discount its long-term effectiveness. In defense of their conventional wisdom, they also like to point out Russia's comparative economic, political and military weakness - they insist that Russia is a mere shadow of the former Soviet Union and cannot, therefore, play any role to threaten US global dominance seriously. Finally, they also point out the many statements coming out of Moscow to the effect that Russia wants to work with the US in a strategic partnership. In summary, they say, Russia is simply unable and unwilling to be a serious threat to US dominance. On the surface, their case seems very solid. But is it?

In the classic story of David and Goliath, the giant laughed at little David, and likewise the United States tends to think a scenario of a serious Russian challenge to US dominance is laughable too. And it is certainly true that Russia is much like little David in comparison to the American Goliath. But swift and crafty little David, despite appearances, was in fact a serious threat to overconfident, unwieldy Goliath, whose defenses were mostly down. In the end, Goliath "lost his head" in the face of David's apparently laughable onslaught. And that is where the danger lies for the last superpower - its deep-rooted tendency toward overconfidence, its underestimating the potential for danger, and its lack of a clear, coherent and workable strategy to ensure the retention of its dominant global position, all combine to put it at significant risk in confronting the array of resourceful and crafty little "Davids" currently challenging its global dominance.

Ancient David successfully wrought his strengths against Goliath's weaknesses. That was asymmetrical rivalry at its very finest. Every giant does have exploitable weaknesses. If those weaknesses can be effectively targeted and exploited before the giant can react successfully, then the entire giant is at the mercy and control of the attacker(s). Very interestingly, when one carefully analyzes precisely what the weaknesses of the American Goliath are, and compares those to the pattern of actions and strategy of "little" Russia and her "little" partners, the fit is remarkable indeed.

What are US weaknesses, and are they really being targeted in a coherent and deliberate strategy? The reliance of US commerce and banking and of the US military upon computers and networks is legendary. Russian hackers are well known to be the global elite, those best able to penetrate and compromise US networks. Microsoft Windows security problems are also legendary, which places the bulk of US commercial and military networks at significant risk. Information (cyber) warfare is clearly a strategic problem, because fixing the current network insecurity will take tremendous effort over a period of many years, and the problems are just beginning to be addressed.

Currently, the US is without wide-ranging and effective network defenses. This situation is far more serious than US officials like to advertise, for obvious reasons. They do not wish to encourage hackers and they don't want to erode confidence in America's commercial/financial and military infrastructure. Both Russia and China have elaborate cyber-warfare programs in place specifically designed to exploit US weaknesses while insulating their own networks from such attacks. In cyber-warfare attack and defense simulations carried on under the direction of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) prior to September 11, the "enemy red team" evidently scored significant successful "hits" against the "blue team", showing up just how vulnerable the United States is. The modern-day little "Davids" have been actively studying the American Goliath's computer-network vulnerabilities very carefully.

US military platforms, while very formidable, are also comparatively expensive, large and unwieldy, and are much like sitting ducks in the face of a whole new generation of Russian-made ultra-quiet diesel-electric attack submarines, supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles, supersonic torpedoes, sophisticated air-defense/anti-missile systems, laser-guided anti-tank weapons and anti-ship and land-attack short-range nuclear-capable ballistic missiles designed for in-theater use. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has described Russian supersonic missiles as the most dangerous on the planet, and for good reason. There exists no effective defense against them. Interestingly, the US has no supersonic cruise missiles deployed anywhere in the world. Current US aircraft-carrier battle-group anti-missile defensive measures consist of ECM (electronic countermeasures) and, at the last few moments, the Point Defense System, radar-guided high-speed, high-capacity machine-guns that lock on to incoming missiles and attempt to destroy them. Such defenses are very effective against incoming subsonic cruise missiles.

However, in the case of the new Russian missiles, US naval defenses, if they detect the incoming missiles at all (AWACS aircraft are the only practical means for doing so), will have less than three seconds thereafter to shoot them down. They can be launched from aircraft, surface ships, or submerged submarines. They travel at Mach 2.5 (about 2,980 kilometers per hour, or about 830 meters per second), much faster than a high-powered rifle bullet. They skim only meters above the ocean surface, do not give away their presence by emitting any form of radiation as they approach their target, are hardened against ECM, and are nuclear-capable. Russia and India are now deploying and marketing the "Brahmos", a jointly developed supersonic anti-ship cruise missile, based on the Russian design. Russia also possesses a nuclear-capable supersonic torpedo that travels faster than the speed of sound underwater - therefore it cannot be reliably detected and tracked by a conventional sonar detection system, because it travels faster than the sonar waves do.

Russia has also developed and deployed sophisticated air-defense and missile-defense systems capable of managing and destroying scores of targets at once. Russian diesel-electric submarines are ultra-quiet, and can detect enemy ships and submarines at a distance of four times that at which they themselves can be detected. Russian anti-tank weapons in use in Iraq scored a number of "kills" against the most advanced tanks in the world. Russia has sold many of these weapons systems to China and others. Russia and India have also developed an ultra-long-range air-to-air missile designed specifically to attack AWACS (Airborne Warning And Control System) and JSTARS (Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System) aircraft that the US and Israel use in warfare to extend their vision and reach. The downing of AWACS and JSTARS aircraft will in effect blind the United States in any conflict without necessarily having to resort to the downing of the US satellite constellation. This is true because virtually all battlefield assets are managed by the AWACS and JSTARS systems. Without the AWACS and JSTARS aircraft, the ability of the US military to see any air or land target is severely reduced.

These asymmetrical weapons systems are all designed to exploit the vulnerabilities, the Achilles' heel, of US military platforms, limiting US ability to project military power by forcing those platforms to stand off at such a distance that US strikes are either impossible or very risky. Since China has purchased many of these systems from Russia, US naval operations in the vicinity of the Taiwan Strait in any future crisis will be significantly complicated and limited. According to the facts, "little" Russia has proved itself very resourceful in countering the almost overwhelming, yet significantly vulnerable, military power of the US giant.

Other US vulnerabilities targeted
US dependency on oil imports is another very significant weakness of the American Goliath. As noted above, Russia is making strategic moves to extend its global monopoly over energy resources. A practical measure of the extent and effectiveness of that monopoly is the fact that since 1999 (for almost five years now) global oil prices have continued above the minimum level Russia considers to be in its strategic interests - that level is about US$22 per barrel. Russia and its partners in OPEC, especially Saudi Arabia and Iran, have managed expertly to throttle oil production so as to control its price. As the Russian monopoly over oil and gas continues to widen, the global price of oil will remain where Russia and its partners desire it - not where the US Goliath would prefer. As noted above, this energy monopoly is a very effective tool being used to transfer wealth outside US boundaries and control.

Russia and its partners are very effectively exploiting another important vulnerability of the US giant - its unprecedented international political and diplomatic isolation resulting from its unilateralist pursuit of an overly muscular foreign policy. At least since the spring of 1997, in the wake of the crisis in the Taiwan Strait and the US bombing of southern Iraq in 1996, both Russia and China have been making diplomatic moves at the United Nations and elsewhere designed to promote the creation of a more stable world order - the multipolar world order. They have argued publicly and privately that the unipolar world order of the last superpower is inherently unstable, unfair and dangerous.

Unwittingly, arrogantly and very shortsightedly, the US has repeatedly acted to validate the diplomatic message and justify the strategic moves of both Russia and China on this issue. Hence we see an array of trends and events occurring that form a definite, undeniable pattern - the multipolar world is taking shape as the US pole is weakened and isolated, and the other, lesser poles are acting collectively to counterbalance US global dominance. All this is occurring apace, and even accelerating, in spite of the fact that the US giant is still, at this time, the dominant force in the international system. In spite of that fact, the trends and forces are mostly moving against the American Goliath. The little "Davids" know that only by collective action can they hope to bring the giant under control, and consequently that is what we increasingly are seeing - collective moves and action to bring balance to the international system.

Forecast: A move closer to chaos
Such pursuit of geopolitical balance may overshoot the mark, however, actually resulting in a disorderly and rapid decline of US global power. That is especially likely if the United States loses its dominant position in the midst of an international crisis wherein it sustains a significant economic crash, or in a military conflict with strategic partners Russia and China that leads to the US military suffering significant loss of men and assets as a result of dangerous and effective asymmetrical warfare against it.

The real problem with the current international system is that structurally, as it moves toward multipolarity, most factors weigh very heavily against an orderly decline of US economic and/or military power. Immensely important vulnerabilities and weaknesses exist that make a disorderly, or even a chaotic, loss of US economic and/or military power much more likely. Consequently, in such a scenario, widespread international chaos would be the most likely eventuality, since no single power could step into the position of global dominance then chaotically vacated by the US.

Attempts may certainly be made at such a time to seat a collective power, an alliance of sorts, as the geopolitical and geo-economic successor to the US. No doubt that sort of last-ditch attempt to restore and salvage order in the international system would be centered in the UN and its Security Council. However, considering mankind's history, it is extremely doubtful such a solution would be able to maintain its own unity for long, keeping the divergent interests of the parties to that alliance in check and submissive to the need for international order. Rapid geopolitical fragmentation and extreme international chaos, on a level never before experienced, would therefore most likely result if the US is ever unseated too rapidly from its current position of dominance that enables it to retain a certain amount of order in the international system.

Ironically, it is the current global dominance of the last superpower that both invites collective opposition in the creation of a multipolar world (threatening to overshoot the mark of balance and taking the world into uncontrolled chaos, however), and at the same time maintains a semblance of order. This is in spite of a certain level of instability caused by the militarization of US foreign policy since the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Hence we find ourselves in an extremely dangerous situation where US-caused instability and the collective counterbalancing (or even anti-US) reaction is definitely on the rise, perhaps bringing the world closer to a nightmare scenario infinitely more dangerous and undesirable than the unpleasantness and comparatively low-grade instability inherent in the current US-dominated system.

The imbalance in the current unipolar system is very dangerous and risky. But the risks of overshooting the mark of geopolitical balance, as a multipolar world order is created by US rivals and competitors at the significant expense of the US, are also extremely great, for no one can expect the US willingly to give up its almost complete dominance over the international system without a fight. And by "fight" is meant military invasion in an effort to reassert and solidify its dominant position if and when it is ever threatened with imminent loss. And in this dangerous mix, we must place international terrorism and the proven ability it has to move nations to resort to extreme measures to protect and reassert control, ostensibly in the name of national security. When the international system is analyzed in the light of these forces and trends, the prognosis is for much greater instability and the proliferation of regional wars.

To avoid the considerable risk of these very unpleasant eventualities, international multilateral diplomatic effort would be required to construct deliberately a more balanced world order and to implement carefully such an order in a fashion that avoids any disorderly loss of power by the US "pole". The longer the US refuses to share its global dominance with other players and the harder those other players attempt to curtail US dominance, the more risk there is of pushing the international system "past center", as it were, resulting in a disorderly or even chaotic reversal of US dominance as described above. In such a crisis, restoring international order and balance would be very difficult, even impossible.

It is extremely important here to resist the tendency to dismiss warnings, based either upon a refusal to face the facts, no matter how unpleasant they might be, or based upon unfounded confidence in the status quo. Just to illustrate, remember that in early 2001, huge and seemingly endless surpluses were forecast for the US economy. The high-tech sector was booming. Things apparently seemed very healthy and bright for the US in an economic sense. But within mere months, it had all evaporated. Where did it all go? A significant amount of America's wealth is being transferred overseas, as noted above. This demonstrates that, even for a superpower, nothing is assured. And as economic wealth and power fade, so do all the derivative forms of power - this truth cannot be refuted.

As an old proverb says, "The scene of this world is changing." Tremendous economic wealth and its resulting power can dissipate very rapidly, especially in a crisis. Certainly that is true in view of the fact that other powers, in a concerted effort to bring about their much-desired multipolar world order, are developing a coherent strategy to weaken US economic power by transferring significant wealth outside of US boundaries, and when the United States itself is unwittingly participating in its own decline.

W Joseph Stroupe is editor in chief of GeoStrategyMap.com, an online global affairs magazine specializing in strategic analysis and forecasting. He can be contacted at editor_in_chief@geostrategymap.com.

(Copyright 2004 W Joseph Stroupe.) source...

HINT: you would not be talking about "recalculating" if it was your first statement on the subject.

This was your first statement "deficits have climbed to almost a trillion dollars--and maybe close to two trillion dollars by FY 2006" devoid of the term "accumulated"

Alas, your original message has been deleted so I am unable to rub your nose in it other than the quotes I used earlier.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
No, that was your LAST message on the subject.

Message:
The subject was the recalculation. I thought that Bush was only culpible for 2 trillion. It was accumulated at 2.5 trillion. I readily admitted my error--my low estimate of Bush's bad deficits.

However, lest we forget the data regarding on-budget deficits, by FY2006, under Bush, we will have accumlated (actual and projected) over 2.5 trillion in on-budget deficits; by FY2009, we will have accumulated (actual and projected) almost 4 trillion in on-budget deficits. THIS IS CRIMINAL. BUSH OUGHT TO BE STRUNG UP BY HIS ....

Name:	HILLARY SUPPORTER
To:	F. Q

In response to:
Really doing GOOD would be sponsoring or cosponsoring some legislation that would make a difference. Attending functions and making sure that the post office in some pisant little town stays open does not make a damn bit of difference in the grand scheme of things. Perhaps you were refering to her stand-up vote against "Lacy and Connor's law" as an example of something GOOD.

Message:
"Really doing GOOD would be sponsoring or cosponsoring some legislation that would make a difference."

Which she does plenty of!! I have listed many of her accomplishments on here numerous times before!!

"Attending functions and making sure that the post office in some pisant little town stays open does not make a damn bit of difference in the grand scheme of things."

There is no cause too BIG ot too SMALL for Senator Clinton. Give her a break! One minute people are griping when she's only seen in Manhattan (which isn't true!)and saying she's only for the media attention, and the next minute someone has a comment like you just made.

Name:	DC
To:	drivers
Re:	revenue generation

In response to:
source...Camera nabs 788 speeders in 2 days

Message:
hey, if they put another camera at the next intersection, wouldn't they be able to double the revenue?

Name:

Individual

Message:
The lead article is something to think about. The U.S. is cuttin' a fat hog as of now. But nations are getting p!ssed at Bush's arrogance. Maybe my kids will see a drastic decline in our position in the world in their lifetime. Maybe Bush is actually anti-American without knowing it. He's not the deepest thinker we have ever known.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
However, lest we forget the data regarding on-budget deficits, by FY2006, under Bush, we will have accumlated (actual and projected) over 2.5 trillion in on-budget deficits; by FY2009, we will have accumulated (actual and projected) almost 4 trillion in on-budget deficits. THIS IS CRIMINAL. BUSH OUGHT TO BE STRUNG UP BY HIS ....

Message:
It is even more CRIMINAL when we remember that, under Clinton, OMB was projecting that we could pay down the entire national debt by about 2012. Now, under Bush, the projections are that we will add 4 trillion by 2009. What a contrast. The contrast doesn't get much sharper than that. Clinton was a real miracle. Bush has ruined everything.

Name:	Better Reader
Re:	Suburned skin

In response to:
The imbalance in the current unipolar system is very dangerous and risky. But the risks of overshooting the mark of geopolitical balance, as a multipolar world order is created by US rivals and competitors at the significant expense of the US, are also extremely great, for no one can expect the US willingly to give up its almost complete dominance over the international system without a fight. And by "fight" is meant military invasion in an effort to reassert and solidify its dominant position if and when it is ever threatened with imminent loss. And in this dangerous mix, we must place intern ...

Message:
Much of this information is correct and relevant, and yet so very much is left out. That invalidates the Geostrat's (a trademarked commercial entity affiliated with WND) pretensions of nonpartisanship.

A quick but very telling example of what Geo leaves out: the current and uprecedented cooperation between US and the Russian & Chinese militaries. That is demonstrable progress towards enhancing multipolarity, yet that info is deliberately downplayed in Geostrat's rundown. Let us also note that China is just beginning to feel the accumulated demands and headaches of its modernization. Russia, Europe and even India are having similar underreported growing pains.

Interestesting also is the obliqueness of geo's intent. Its propaganda strategy is to erode confidence inthe existing order through heavily weight propaganda guised ias supposedly objective supposedly non partisan analysis.....and then leave the reader hanging till soon after the oblique follow-through comes along. that way the different agitprop elements get some shielding, and the agencies they shill for get a moving front that is harder to engage.

Name:	fuh q
To:	HILLARY SUPPORTER

In response to:
There is no cause too BIG ot too SMALL for Senator Clinton. Give her a break! One minute people are griping when she's only seen in Manhattan (which isn't true!)and saying she's only for the media attention, and the next minute someone has a comment like you just made.

Message:
If she has so many accomplishments, list just one bill that she has sponsored or cosponsored that passed the senate? Also please let me know how it affects me, being a NY resident, in a positive way and then I will give her a break.

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Goes to show you how reliable those predictions are.

Message:
Yep. That's the science of economics. Of course, who could have imagined that Bush would get his tax package through Congress as easily as he did. And the predictions are often way to optimistic--as you point out. It could be that under Bush we will add 5 or 6 trillion in on-budget deficits rather than the predicted 4 trillion. Who knows?

Name:

Individual

In response to:
sounds like a windfall for the bankers, no wonder they're pissed, b*ll was their b*tch selling out america for t hem

Message:
Sounds like a windfall for everybody if it had happened. But the good times were shattered by Bush. It is criminal.

Name:	Republican Attack Machine
Re:	Hillary the Musical

Message:
So when does Kerry bow out blaming either (a)Poor health or (b)RAM operatives for destroying him?

Name:	fuh q
To:	individual

In response to:
It could be that under Bush we will add 5 or 6 trillion in on-budget deficits rather than the predicted 4 trillion. Who knows?

Message:
Could be that under Bush the US will have added only nothing to the deficit at the end of his term rather than the predicted(?) 4 trillion. Who knows?

Name:

and a follow-up

Message:
Since your wife says Walmart destroys small businessand neighborhoods...why does she own a million in Walmart stock?

Name:

Individual

In response to:
Could be that under Bush the US will have added only nothing to the deficit at the end of his term rather than the predicted(?) 4 trillion.

Message:
As I said, predictions are typically way too optimistic. You seem to be saying that predictions are typically way too pessimistic.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

Message:
Let us also not forget the fact that Bill Clinton still remains the KING of real on-budget deficits:

Bill Clinton is still the Defict King if we are to use Individuals "on-budget deficit" numbers.

If 886 billion is criminal, what do you call 1.1 trillion? (especially when Bill Clinton did not have to fight the cold war or the war on terrorism and Bill Clinton claimed he had surpluses. I guess using Individual's logic, Bill Clinton should be shot.

Name:

fuh q

In response to:
You seem to be saying that predictions are typically way too pessimistic.

Message:
Exactly! Changes is tax law, social security benefits or a targeted poisoning of the malt liquor supply may markedly reduce governmental liabilities markedly changing the deficit projections, only time will tell.

Name:	XYZ
Re:	Wimps and Warriors

Message:
"It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps - the wimps and the warriors," Miller said. "The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us." Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia)

Name:	Fact Finders
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
The lead article is something to think about. The U.S. is cuttin' a fat hog as of now. But nations are getting p!ssed at Bush's arrogance.

Name:

XYZ

In response to:
If 886 billion is criminal, what do you call 1.1 trillion? (especially when Bill Clinton did not have to fight the cold war or the war on terrorism and Bill Clinton claimed he had surpluses. I guess using Individual's logic, Bill Clinton should be shot.

Message:
That would be too quick and painless. Make him remain married to Hillary for the rest of his life if you want him to endure a long and drawn out torture.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
It is even more CRIMINAL when we remember that, under Clinton, OMB was projecting that we could pay down the entire national debt by about 2012.

FACT: OMB projects the budget will be balanced by 2012. Not bad seeing that we are fighting many wars (that Bill Clinton refused to fight).

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	SPINdividual

In response to:
Sounds like a windfall for everybody if it had happened. But the good times were shattered by Bush. It is criminal.

FACT: nearly ALL Americans lost money in the Clinton/Gore False Prosperity/Crash.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

In response to:
It is even more CRIMINAL when we remember that, under Clinton, OMB was projecting that we could pay down the entire national debt by about 2012.

Message:
One thing we do know is this is complete bull sh!t. Bill Clinton added billions and billions to the National Debt every year of his presidency, even the years he claimed to have a surplus. Using Bill Clinton's record, there is absolutely no way the National Debt could be paid down or even made to decrease Bill Clinton found a way to add billions and billions to the National Debt while claiming to have a "balanced budget"

Name:	Let It Rock
Re:	iceage return meets global warming put the planet on a wild ride

Message:
Iceland Iceland apparently has no prehistory. According to stories written down some 250 years after the event, the country was discovered and settled by Norse people in the Viking Age. The oldest source, The Book of the Icelanders, written in about 1130, sets the period of settlement at about AD 870-930.

The other main source, The Book of Settlements, of 12th-century origin but known only in later versions, states explicitly that the first permanent settlers, Ing—lfr Arnarson and his wife, Hallveig Fr—dad—ttir, came to Iceland to settle in the year 874. They came from Norway and chose as their homestead a site that Ing—lfr named Reykjav’k.

The Book of Settlements then enumerates more than 400 settlers who sailed with their families, servants, and slaves to Iceland to stake claims to land there. Most of the settlers came from Norway, but some came from other Nordic countries and from the Norse Viking Age settlements in the British Isles.

Archaeological finds support the documentary evidence and place Iceland among Norse Viking Age settlements of the late 9th or early 10th century. The Icelandic language testifies to the same origin: Icelandic is a Nordic language and is most closely related to the dialects of western Norway.

Although the island was not populated until the Viking Age, Iceland probably had been known to people long before that time. The 4th-century-BC Greek explorer Pytheas of Massalia (Marseille) described a northern country that he called Thule, located six days' sailing distance north of Britain. In the 8th century, Irish hermits who had begun to sail to Iceland in search of solitude also called the island Thule.

It is unknown, however, if Pytheas and the hermits were describing the same island. According to the early Icelandic sources, some Irish monks were living in Iceland when the Nordic settlers arrived, but these monks soon left because they were unwilling to share the country with heathens.

Name:

Titus

In response to:
I predict that Individual will be castroed within one week. That could be a prediction.

Message:
nahh, who cares about this cult of personality schtick, it don't ring true, its a put on.....coma-pared to here wwe raw is sponatneous extemporaneous improvisation. in real life that happens when you forget about the cult of personality schtick

Name:

Natchez Ruler

In response to:
It's obvious to me that this country is rapidly dividing itself into two camps - the wimps and the warriors," Miller said. "The ones who want to argue and assess and appease, and the ones who want to carry this fight to our enemies and kill them before they kill us." Senator Zell Miller (D-Georgia) Right on Zell!

Message:
Wonder what Zell would have to observe about the 'asia times'colloquy ???

Name:

News Junkie

Message:
"It is a provocative reflection. . . that Jesse Jackson came out of college with only bad things to say about America, while Don King came out of prison with only good things to say about it.

Name:	Individual
Re:	Clinton's miracle

In response to:
One thing we do know is this is complete bull sh!t.

The record is a miracle: declining deficits which turned into surpluses; declining deficits for every year of his administration except one. Under Clinton, we had the first on-budget surpluses since Kennedy in 1960. Amazing. Miraculous.

Name:	Editor
To:	Rhinocerous

In response to:
My guess is thgatthe poster of that article has allegiances which are more imporatnt to her than her allegiance to the United States, and she is hoping lure defectors and suckers to her cause.

Message:
Would you prefer that I post only articles that you agree with? Aren't you interested in how the Asia times sees us? If it makes you so unhappy that you must resort to impugning my patriotism please go to the Free Republic forum. There you will find posters and articles that reflect your opinion only. No controversial posts will compel you to make such insulting remarks.

Personally I have no way to gauge the validity of this post. I am not an expert in economics and strategic doctrine. But since it is a featured article in the Asia Times that reveals potential weaknesses in our system, I felt it was my responsibility to bring it to the forum to get feedback. I would be irresponsible if I hid controversial information from you so that you will be nice to me and pay me compliments instead of impugn my patriotism.

Instead of guiding us in the right direction and pointing out the weakness in the article you found it much easier to shoot the messenger." Don't you think that is a very foolish thing to do? Intelligent people who are not hateful partisans would simply point out the inconsistencies.

This forum is not for you. I don't know what you are doing here. There are lots of forums on the Internet that will feed you exactly what you want to read. Please go there.

Name:

Citizen of the World

In response to:
Instead of guiding us in the right direction and pointing out the weakness in the article you found it much easier to shoot the messenger." Don't you think that is a very foolish thing to do? Intelligent people who are not hateful partisans would simply point out the inconsistencies.

Message:
Tell that to Milan...and John Kerry is still a self confessed WAR CRIMINAL

Name:	Individual
Re:	right wing extremists

Message:
I'll bet every once in a while the right wing extremists, despite their rhetoric, look at the data during the Clinton years and say to themselves, "Boy that was a true miracle."

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

In response to:
Under Clinton, we had the first on-budget surpluses since Kennedy in 1960.

Name:	Notice their responses
To:	Individual

In response to:
Kennedy was not president in 1960 (moron).

Message:
Every time the right tries to get you with nasty name-calling I know you are right and they are scared.

Name:

Proud A,merican

In response to:
I'll bet every once in a while the right wing extremists, despite their rhetoric, look at the data during the Clinton years and say to themselves, "Boy that was a true miracle."

Message:
Bill Clinton diddled with his fiddle in the White House sink while the economy went through the worst era of economic insanity since the Great Depression. We survived the Clinton/Gore Recession.

Bill Clinton was the worst president of the last 50 years. A clown. Unrealized potential. He could have done a lot but he chose to have sex with employees. The man disgraced the office of the presidency.

Bill Clinton might actually be the worst president in the history of our country.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Brain-dead Democrats

In response to:
Every time the right tries to get you with nasty name-calling I know you are right and they are scared.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Notice their responses
Re:	Notice their ignorance

In response to:
The one who has no need for insults is the one with the facts.

Name:

John Kerry

Message:
You know despite his rhetoric Individual knows deep down that someone who avoided service altogether is definitely a chickensh!t.

Name:

The Real Deal

Message:
We also know that an Editor who would slam some posters for "name calling" and let others make a daily habit of it is pretty chickensh!t too.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

In response to:
FY2000 Surplus of 87 billion

Message:
Speaking of criminal, Bill Clinton claimed a 87 billion surplus in 2000 yet he added 17 billion to the National Debt in 2000Source. That is a differance of 104 billion? Where did it go? Bill Clinton's pocket?

Name:

>>><<<

In response to:
Bill Clinton was the worst president in modern times.

Message:
I gotta give that one to LBJ... you know the DEMOCRAT who lied and 58,000 DIED?

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Notice their responses

In response to:
The Cold Hard Fact: Kennedy was not president in 1960 (moron).

Notice their responses: The one who has no need for insults is the one with the facts.

Message:
The term moron was not an insult in this context. Individual received the term the old fashioned way...he earned it.

HINT: this is an internet forum so clearly you have internet access. Do a quick search or go to Whitehouse.gov to see who was president in 1960. The 1960 election was infamous (remember the mob stole the election for Kennedy but Nixon knew challenging the election would damage the country so he didn't, too bad Gore didn't give a rats a$$ about anything other than himself). Any adult should know Kennedy was elected in 1960. If Kennedy was elected in 1960 then he sure as heck was not president.

Name:

No Way!

In response to:
Bill Clinton was the worst president in modern times.

Message:
That would be Jimmy Carter bar none. Which brings me the the observation that ketchup boy would be more carter than clinton, no matter how hard conjob hucksters for him. Of course this is my personal observation. I am rarely wrong.

I watched that dinner from last week on c-span and the dems in attendence seemed underwhelmed by ketchup boy. When he was introduced they sat on their hands. Not what you'd say fired up. It was like a funeral. Too bad the dem slime machine trashed Dean. Kerry is a yawner big time.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual
Re:	Facts Trump Myths

In response to:
I'll bet every once in a while the right wing extremists, despite their rhetoric, look at the data during the Clinton years and say to themselves, "Boy that was a true miracle."

Message:
The problem is: it is the congress that passes budgets, not the president. Bill Clinton vetoed out of balance the first balanced budget in 30 years. Bill Clinton shut down to government to avoid signing on to the Republican's balanced budget. The Republicans presented the concept of balancing the budget as part of the their historic Contract with America (item #1) and the Republican Revolution of 1994 (thanks again Bill Clinton!). The Republicans balanced the budget, not Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton never presented a balanced budget to congress. Bill Clinton fought for higher spending. Republicans even got angry with other Republicans because Bill Clinton was allowed to spend more and more. But alas, that is how politics works. The Republicans did the heavy lifting; the Republicans balanced the budget while Bill Clinton was having sex with young employees in his office during business hours. Like Welfare reform, Bill Clinton tried to take credit for the efforts of the Republicans. Alas, that is politics.

It is a miracle Bill Clinton was not removed from office when he was impeached. Although he is the only president in history to be disbarred for lying while in office and he is the only president to accept a plea bargain to avoid indictment as he was leaving office.

Name:	The Cold Hard Facts
To:	Individual

In response to:
Under Clinton, we had the first on-budget surpluses since Kennedy in 1960.

Message:
Prior to the Republicans balancing the budget in 1998 (sorta) the last balanced budget was in 1969 (Nixon was president).

WASHINGTON - Iraq under Saddam Hussein did not pose a threat to the United States, but it did to Israel, which is one reason why Washington invaded the Arab country, according to a speech made by a member of a top-level White House intelligence group.

Inter Press Service uncovered the remarks by Philip Zelikow, who is now the executive director of the body set up to investigate the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 - the 9/11 commission - in which he suggests a prime motive for the invasion just over one year ago was to eliminate a threat to Israel, a staunch US ally in the Middle East.

Zelikow's casting of the attack on Iraq as one launched to protect Israel appears at odds with the public position of US President George W Bush and his administration, which has never overtly drawn the link between its war on the regime of Saddam and its concern for Israel's security.

The administration has instead insisted it launched the war to liberate the Iraqi people, destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and to protect the United States.

Zelikow made his statements about "the unstated threat" during his tenure on a highly knowledgeable and well-connected body known as the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board (PFIAB), which reports directly to the president. He served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat [is] and actually has been since 1990 - it's the threat against Israel," Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of September 11 and the future of the war on al-Qaeda.

"And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell," said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 US troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington's desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the "war on terrorism" it launched after September 11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the US.

Israel is Washington's biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of US$3-4 billion.

Even though members of the 16-person PFIAB come from outside government, they enjoy the confidence of the president and have access to all information related to foreign intelligence that they need to play their vital advisory role. Known in intelligence circles as "Piffy-ab", the board is supposed to evaluate the nation's intelligence agencies and probe any mistakes they make. The unpaid appointees on the board require a security clearance known as "code word" that is higher than top secret.

The national security adviser to former president George H W Bush (1989-93) Brent Scowcroft, currently chairs the board in its work overseeing a number of intelligence bodies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the various military intelligence groups and the Pentagon's National Reconnaissance Office.

Neither Scowcroft nor Zelikow returned numerous phone calls and e-mail messages from IPS for this story.

Zelikow has long-established ties to the Bush administration. Before his appointment to PFIAB in October 2001, he was part of the current president's transition team in January 2001. In that capacity, Zelikow drafted a memo for National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice on reorganizing and restructuring the National Security Council (NSC) and prioritizing its work.

Richard A Clarke, who was counter-terrorism coordinator for Bush's predecessor president Bill Clinton (1993-2001) also worked for Bush senior, and has recently accused the current administration of not heeding his terrorism warnings. Clarke said that Zelikow was among those he briefed about the urgent threat from al-Qaeda in December 2000.

Rice herself had served in the NSC during the first Bush administration, and subsequently teamed up with Zelikow on a 1995 book about the unification of Germany.

Zelikow had ties with another senior Bush administration official - Robert Zoellick, the current trade representative. The two wrote three books together, including one in 1998 on the United States and the Muslim Middle East.

Aside from his position on the 9/11 commission, Zelikow is now also director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. His close ties to the administration prompted accusations of a conflict of interest in 2002 from families of victims of the September attacks, who protested his appointment to the investigative body.

In his university speech, Zelikow, who strongly backed attacking the Iraqi dictator, also explained the threat to Israel by arguing that Baghdad was preparing in 1990-91 to spend huge amounts of "scarce hard currency" to harness "communications against electromagnetic pulse", a side-effect of a nuclear explosion that could sever radio, electronic and electrical communications.

That was "a perfectly absurd expenditure unless you were going to ride out a nuclear exchange - they [Iraqi officials] were not preparing to ride out a nuclear exchange with us. Those were preparations to ride out a nuclear exchange with the Israelis," according to Zelikow. He also suggested that the danger of biological weapons falling into the hands of the anti-Israeli Islamic Resistance Movement, known by its Arabic acronym Hamas, would threaten Israel rather than the US, and that those weapons could have been developed to the point where they could deter Washington from attacking Hamas.

"Play out those scenarios," he told his audience, "and I will tell you, people have thought about that, but they are just not talking very much about it".

"Don't look at the links between Iraq and al-Qaeda, but then ask yourself the question, 'gee, is Iraq tied to Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the people who are carrying out suicide bombings in Israel?' Easy question to answer; the evidence is abundant."

To date, the possibility of the US attacking Iraq to protect Israel has been only timidly raised by some intellectuals and writers, with few public acknowledgements from sources close to the administration. Analysts who reviewed Zelikow's statements said that they are concrete evidence of one factor in the rationale for going to war, which has been hushed up.

"Those of us speaking about it sort of routinely referred to the protection of Israel as a component," said Phyllis Bennis of the Washington-based Institute of Policy Studies. "But this is a very good piece of evidence of that."

Others say that the administration should be blamed for not making known to the public its true intentions and real motives for invading Iraq. "They [the administration] made a decision to invade Iraq, and then started to search for a policy to justify it. It was a decision in search of a policy and because of the odd way they went about it, people are trying to read something into it," said Nathan Brown, professor of political science at George Washington University and an expert on the Middle East.

But he downplayed the Israel link. "In terms of securing Israel, it doesn't make sense to me because the Israelis are probably more concerned about Iran than they were about Iraq in terms of the long-term strategic threat," he said.

Still, Brown says that Zelikow's words carried weight. "Certainly his position would allow him to speak with a little bit more expertise about the thinking of the Bush administration, but it doesn't strike me that he is any more authoritative than [Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul] Wolfowitz, or Rice or [Secretary of State Colin] Powell or anybody else. All of them were sort of fishing about for justification for a decision that has already been made," Brown said.

WASHINGTON - President Bush (news - web sites)'s campaign and the GOP on Wednesday accused the campaign of Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) of illegally coordinating political ads and get-out-the-vote activities with anti-Bush groups and donors including billionaire George Soros.

The Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee (news - web sites) said they would file a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (news - web sites) accusing Kerry and pro-Kerry groups of violating a campaign law that broadly bans the use of "soft money" — corporate, union and unlimited individual donations — to influence federal elections.

In a highly unusual move, the Bush campaign and RNC plan to ask the FEC to dismiss the complaint immediately so they can file a federal lawsuit to block the activities and force the groups to pay for presidential ads and get-out-the-vote drives with limited donations from individuals rather than soft money. Usually complainants pursue FEC action before going to court, but it can take months or even years for the commission to resolve complaints.

The Bush campaign and the GOP say pro-Kerry groups are illegally spending soft money in the presidential race, and that Kerry's campaign is illegally coordinating that spending. The groups have contended they are operating legally.

"They're making a mockery of what the rules are," Bush campaign chairman Marc Racicot said.

Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter accused Republicans of political gamesmanship.

"We take the law very seriously. Republicans can't stand the fact the American people want change, so now they are playing politics with the law," Cutter said.

The complaint names two groups, MoveOn.org and the Media Fund, that have been running ads in March criticizing Bush in several battleground states. Kerry, too, has been airing ads in key states, but on a much smaller scale.

The GOP cited at least three factors it says prove coordination: links between people involved in some of the soft money groups and the Kerry campaign during the same election cycle; the timing of media buys in the same states and media markets; and TV stations receiving a Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic plan before Kerry publicly released the economic plan.

"I'd call it slanderous nonsense — the typical Republican politics of intimidation," said Media Fund spokesman Jim Jordan, a former Kerry campaign manager who is among those named in the complaint. He said the Media Fund ad on Kerry's economic positions mentioned only what Kerry has been saying publicly for months.

Wes Boyd, president of MoveOn, said in a statement: "We do not coordinate with the Kerry campaign. These charges are baseless and irresponsible."

Those named in the complaint include the pro-Democratic groups America Coming Together, America Votes, Voices for Working Families and Moving America Forward; billionaire businessman Soros, who has pledged millions of dollars to anti-Bush soft money efforts, and other major donors; and leaders of the groups, including New Mexico Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson, a founder of Moving America Forward.

Spokespeople for Richardson and Soros did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

The coordination complaint is the second complaint the Bush campaign has filed against the groups. The campaign in early March asked the FEC to investigate soft money spending by the Media Fund on anti-Bush ads. The Media Fund, using large individual donations to fund its ads, argues its activities are legal.

The Republican complaints come as the commission considers placing broad new limits on soft money spending by tax-exempt political groups.

Its decision could have the greatest short-term effect on Democrats, whose party depended more heavily on soft money than the GOP did before the law banned national party committees from collecting it.

Name:

Fact Finders

In response to:
The majority of the oil states of the Middle East have adopted a decidedly anti-American stance in the aftermath of the Iraq invasion

Name:

Clarke proving to be as big a liar as John Kerry and Bill Clinton

Message:
NEW YORK - Richard Clarke, President Bush’s former chief counterterrorism adviser, said Wednesday that it was possible that he and his team could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks if the Bush administration had paid more attention ahead of time to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network.

Clarke’s comments, in an hourlong interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” were a departure from the testimony he gave last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, when he answered no to the question of whether there was “the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11” even if everything he had called for had been implemented.

We don't need a "commission" to find out how 9-11 happened. The truth is in the timeline:

In 1979, President Jimmy Carter allowed the Shah of Iran to be deposed by a mob of Islamic fanatics. A few months later, Muslims stormed the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took American Embassy staff hostage.

Carter retaliated by canceling Iranian visas. He eventually ordered a disastrous and humiliating rescue attempt, crashing helicopters in the desert.

Reagan said the U.S. would not surrender, but Democrats threw a hissy fit, introducing a resolution demanding that our troops be withdrawn. Reagan caved in to Democrat caterwauling in an election year and withdrew our troops – bombing Syrian-controlled areas on the way out. Democrats complained about that, too.

In 1985, an Italian cruise ship, the Achille Lauro, was seized and a 69-year-old American was shot and thrown overboard by Muslim extremists.

Reagan ordered a heart-stopping mission to capture the hijackers after "the allies" promised them safe passage. In a daring operation, American fighter pilots captured the hijackers and turned them over to the Italians – who then released them to safe harbor in Iraq.

On April 5, 1986, a West Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. servicemen was bombed by Muslim extremists from the Libyan Embassy in East Berlin, killing an American.

Ten days later, Reagan bombed Libya, despite our dear ally France refusing the use of their airspace. Americans bombed Gadhafi's residence, killing his daughter, and dropped a bomb on the French Embassy "by mistake."

Reagan also stoked a long, bloody war between heinous regimes in Iran and Iraq. All this was while winning a final victory over Soviet totalitarianism.

In December 1988, a passenger jet, Pan Am Flight 103, was bombed over Lockerbie, Scotland, by Muslim extremists.

President-elect George Bush claimed he would continue Reagan's policy of retaliating against terrorism, but did not. Without Reagan to gin her up, even Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went wobbly, saying there would be no revenge for the bombing.

In early 1991, Bush went to war with Iraq. A majority of Democrats opposed the war, and later complained that Bush didn't "finish off the job" with Saddam.

In February 1993, the World Trade Center was bombed by Muslim fanatics, killing five people and injuring hundreds.

In October 1993, 18 American troops were killed in a savage firefight in Somalia. The body of one American was dragged through the streets of Mogadishu as the Somalian hordes cheered.

Clinton responded by calling off the hunt for Mohammed Farrah Aidid and ordering our troops home. Osama bin Laden later told ABC News: "The youth ... realized more than before that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows ran in defeat."

In November 1995, five Americans were killed and 30 wounded by a car bomb in Saudi Arabia set by Muslim extremists.

In June 1996, a U.S. Air Force housing complex in Saudi Arabia was bombed by Muslim extremists.

Clinton, advised by Clarke, lobbed some bombs into Iraq hundreds of miles from Saddam's forces.

In November 1997, Iraq refused to allow U.N. weapons inspections to do their jobs and threatened to shoot down a U.S. U-2 spy plane.

In February 1998, Clinton threatened to bomb Iraq, but called it off when the United Nations said no.

On Aug. 7, 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by Muslim extremists.

On Aug. 20, Monica Lewinsky appeared for the second time to testify before the grand jury.

Clinton responded by bombing Afghanistan and Sudan, severely damaging a camel and an aspirin factory.

On Dec. 16, the House of Representatives prepared to impeach Clinton the next day.

Clinton retaliated by ordering major air strikes against Iraq, described by the New York Times as "by far the largest military action in Iraq since the end of the Gulf War in 1991."

The only time Clinton decided to go to war with anyone in the vicinity of Muslim fanatics was in 1999 – when Clinton attacked Serbians who were fighting Islamic fanatics.

Bush came into office telling his national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, he was "tired of swatting flies" – he wanted to eliminate al-Qaida.

On Sept. 11, 2001, when Bush had been in office for barely seven months, 3,000 Americans were murdered in a savage terrorist attack on U.S. soil by Muslim extremists.

Since then, Bush has won two wars against countries that harbored Muslim fanatics, captured Saddam Hussein, immobilized Osama bin Laden, destroyed al-Qaida's base, and begun to create the only functioning democracy in the Middle East other than Israel. Democrats opposed it all – except their phony support for war with Afghanistan, which they immediately complained about and said would be a Vietnam quagmire. And now they claim to be outraged that in the months before 9-11, Bush did not do everything Democrats opposed doing after 9-11.

Name:

It's a PLUTOCRACY

In response to:
billionaire businessman Soros, who has pledged millions of dollars to anti-Bush soft money efforts

Name:	Ted
To:	Individual

In response to:
Yep. That's the science of economics. Of course, who could have imagined that Bush would get his tax package through Congress as easily as he did. And the predictions are often way to optimistic--as you point out. It could be that under Bush we will add 5 or 6 trillion in on-budget deficits rather than the predicted 4 trillion. Who knows

THE HAGUE, Netherlands – The International Court of Justice ruled Wednesday that the United States violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row and ordered their cases be reviewed.

The United Nations' highest judiciary, also known as the world court, was considering a suit filed by Mexico claiming 52 convicted murderers weren't given their right to assistance from their government.

"The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence" of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.

Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States. But for three men who have already exhausted all other appeals, the court said the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time. The court found that in the remaining case, the convict had received his rights and his case didn't need to be reviewed. Mexican officials praised the ruling as "a triumph of international law" and said they were confident the United States would comply with the court's order.

Arturo Dager, a legal adviser with Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, said it would be an important legal tool for Mexican inmates in the United States. "Of course we have full confidence that the United States will comply with the court's ruling," Dager said, adding that if it did not, Mexico could ask the U.N. Security Council to issue a resolution urging it to do so.

"Mexico was not vindicated. The rule of international law was vindicated. Of course we are confident the United States will fully comply with the ruling," said Juan Gomez Robledo, Mexico's ambassador to the Netherlands. He said Mexico "doesn't contest the United States' right as a sovereign country to impose the death penalty for the most grave crimes," but wanted to make sure Mexico's citizens were not abused by a foreign legal system they don't always understand.

Washington had no immediate reaction. U.S. Ambassador Clifford Sobel referred comments to the Justice Department. Even if Washington accepts the decision, it was unclear if federal authorities will be able to enforce it or compel individual states to abide by it.

Under the court's statute, its judgments are "binding, final and without appeal." Its rulings have rarely been ignored. At the heart of the Mexico-U.S. case is the 1963 Vienna Convention, which guarantees that people accused of a serious crime while in a foreign country the right to contact their own government for help, and that they be informed of that right by arresting authorities.

The world court is charged with resolving disputes between nations and has jurisdiction over the treaty. It found that U.S. authorities hadn't properly informed the 51 men of their rights when they realized they were foreigners.

In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again.

The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and that the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.

U.S. lawyer William Taft argued the prisoners had received fair trials. He said even if the prisoners didn't get consular help, the way to remedy the wrong "must be left to the United States."

In its written arguments, the United States said Mexico's request would be a "radical intrusion" into the U.S. justice system, contradicting laws and customs in every city and state in the nation.

"The court has never ordered any form of restitution nearly as far reaching as that sought by Mexico," the arguments said.

The three men whose cases the court ordered specially reviewed were Cesar Fierro and Roberto Ramos, both in prison in Texas, and Osbaldo Aguilera Torres, in Oklahoma. Other Mexicans are on death row in California, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Oregon.

In November, the U.S. Supreme Court declined without comment to hear an appeal from Torres based on the Vienna Convention, although Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer wrote opinions.

"It surely is reasonable to presume that most foreign nationals are unaware of the provisions of the Vienna Convention (as are, it seems, many local prosecutors)," Stevens wrote.

In all, there are 121 foreign citizens on U.S. death row, 55 of whom are Mexican, according to Death Penalty Information Center.

In 2001, a similar case came before the court filed by Germany to stop the execution of two German brothers who also had not been informed of their right to consular assistance. One brother was executed before the court could act. The judges ordered a stay of execution for the second brother, Walter LaGrand, until it could deliberate, but he was executed anyway by Arizona.

When the court finally ruled in 2001, it chastised the U.S. government for not halting the execution of LaGrand, and rejected arguments that Washington was powerless to intervene in criminal cases under the authority of the individual states.

Mexican President Vicente Fox canceled a visit to President Bush's ranch in 2002 to protest the execution of a Mexican citizen not mentioned in the world court suit. The visit finally took place earlier this month.

Name:	Major Tom
To:	Winston Cup

Message:
BOSTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry aka Flip flop Kerry said Wednesday he would return to campaigning ``faster than you can blink'' after outpatient surgery to repair a minor shoulder injury sidelines him for the rest of the week.

Uncomfirmed sources say Kerry is not really going in for Shoulder surgery, but is having a microchip embedded into his brain.

Secret insiders say the chip will be used to "controll" Kerry. Unconfirmed sources say they think they know who will controll Kerrys thoughts. As it turns out it is his wife millionaire heiress Teresa Wilhelm Heinz Kerry of the famous Heinz family formally of Nazi Germany.

Kerry, 60, tore part of his right rotator cuff in January after spending time with a mysterous intern. When he wrenched the shoulder while bracing himself.

Mrs. Kerry said, " I just do not want him fooling around on me. Hillary may have put up with that kind of crap, but I will not."

The operation, which was being performed by Dr. Otto Van Rich, chief of microchip implant dept., at Massachusetts General Hospital, requires general anesthesia and should take about 16 hours, Zarins said.

``I'll be back faster than you can blink,'' the spunky old Massachusetts senator told the Farmers International Conference two hours before going in for surgery.

Rich said this week that he will operate through a 1- to 2-inch incision in the front of the forehead. Kerry was expected to go home Friday afternoon, with narcotic Oxyconten for a few days, as needed. Kerry will wear a zit patch for a day or two before being allowed to use the brain carefully, Rich said. Kerry made the most of his time before surgery. He spoke by satellite to the North Korea Concentration Camp Association, then held a round-table discussion with Cuban unemployed workers in Brighton, Mass.

Name:	Let's save the US
To:	forum
Re:	People who like it the way it;'s screwed up

In response to:
10 suggestions to prevent societal further decay in America and keep America from being over-run and re-named. This country cannot assimulate 5000 new illegal aliens daily. We have problems with illegals already here and our legal citizens require a break from kissing up to Mexico.

9.Leaflet and carpet bomb Suni country around Falah (sp) where troops being murdered.

10. Tell World Court to go to hell. The US has 51 Illegal alien cold-blooded murderers on death row which the Chinese judge in charge wants re-tried. A Chicom is in charge of this European court which wants to have soverienty OVER the US and the world.

Name:	silverdollar11@hotmail.com
To:	Forum

Message:
I am the niece of the Lord of Flies that post on this forum. I am 15 years old and in the 9th grade and I would like to become a Criminal Justic Lawyer. I am required by my Composion Literture class to do a job shadow but there is hardly any good Lawyers around because I live in such a small town. I would like to have a law firm in a big city. So I am seeing if I could find someone on here that could answer some question that I could use and become more informed on the career. If you could help me please send me an e-mail. Any and all information is a big help. Thanks.

Name:	Politiphile
To:	Americans for truth and justice:
Re:	Crimes against Americans and their Interests:

Message:
Check out this website and e-mail it to every loyal American you know. http://alamo-girl.com Protect America from those who seek to destroy it.

Name:	khobar
To:	Clarke proving to be as big a liar as John Kerry and Bill Clinton

In response to:
NEW YORK - Richard Clarke, President Bush’s former chief counterterrorism adviser, said Wednesday that it was possible that he and his team could have prevented the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks if the Bush administration had paid more attention ahead of time to Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terror network. Clarke’s comments, in an hourlong interview on MSNBC’s “Hardball,” were a departure from the testimony he gave last week before the independent commission investigating the attacks, when he answered no to the question of whether there was “the remotest chance that it would have ...

Name:	>>
Re:	Kerry Unveils 'Dispassionate Liberalism' Agenda

Message:
(2004-03-28) -- After enduring criticism for his failure to make his mark on the Democrat party, or even have a blueprint for his own presidential campaign, John Forbes Kerry today unveiled a platform he called 'Dispassionate Liberalism: An Agenda for America."

Taking his lead from President Bush's successful "compassionate conservatism" platform in the 2000 campaign, Mr. Kerry said his "dispassionate liberalism" similarly blunts the usual assaults on Democrats.

"Just like Bush reversed conventional wisdom by proclaiming that Republicans actually care about people," said Mr. Kerry, "my agenda declares that it's okay to be a bleeding-heart liberal without the bleeding heart part."

Democrat National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe said it's all part of the "New Aloofness," a Democrat sensibility that says "It's okay to be for big government and higher taxes without having to justify it by claiming to care about people who are many rungs below you on the economic ladder."

"It's really a very liberating philosophy," said Mr. McAuliffe. "We can be millionaires, seek to extend the reach of government into the personal lives of Americans and not even have to pretend to relate to the ordinary proletarians."

Name:	Lamans Chinker
To:	forum
Re:	The Passion is a Learning experience/ entertains

In response to:
Good review of a fabulous film. Mel Gibson broke many Hollywood "rules" such as Thou shalt borrow from notable personages". Hugh mega paid mega star must be an attractor. And several others.

Message:
Michael Savage's Review of 'The Passion' The Capture of Jesus choreographed in Kurosawa-esque movements. The ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin linguistics. A must for every Christian and Jew; every rebel, independent, iconoclast who has felt the blunt steel of rejection, isolation, humiliation, or castigation. As for portraying Jews in a negative light - a resounding NO! That is, for rational educated people. There is always the fear that bigots will use this film as they might use any pretext to advance their hateful agenda. The wild card question is: How will radical Muslims use this film? Will they seek to turn Christians against Jews? During the trial of Jesus, two ancient Hebrew Judges who loudly claim the hearing biased are boldly thrown from the court. The biased judges do not want to hear the opinion that Jesus is innocent of the charges against him. Good Jews. Fair Jews. Bad Jews. Biased Jews. Good Romans. Bad Romans. Like today, in historical context. A passion play about faith and fear, the blessed and the cursed. The loyal and traitorous. For everyone who has craved a portrait of living biblical history, there has never been a more accurate portrayal. The Judas-tree scene alone is worth the price of admission. Both for its dramatic content as for its moral imperative. For every parent wanting to instill moral values in a child, The Passion can be a good teacher. But we mustn't run from the most pregnant question. Some Jewish organizations have legitimate fears that this remarkable work of art might instigate hatred against the Jewish people. We cannot predict what demented bigots might do nor should we permit them to dictate the terms of our civilization and its artistic creations. How is it that the most vile films imaginable are being made with little or no protest from the very same organizations attacking Gibson's artistic creation. Murder, Rape, Drug Usage - all standard fare in a theater near you. No protest about these vile works from these organizations who object to what appears to be 100% biblically correct. Following the screening of his controversial film, Mr. Gibson asked me what I thought of it. I said, "Of course there are going to be those who are going to look to blame the Jewish people, but it is the Romans who flay Jesus nearly to death and who actually crucify him." I added, "Mel, what are people going to do, stop eating pasta!" There was then much laughter all around the boardroom. But I repeat, are people to stop eating Italian food because of Pontius Pilate and the Roman sadists? It would be foolish to think so.

Name:	Loki
To:	Mud Brick
Re:	Source?

In response to:
that why you used such an evanescent moniker

Name:	Dan Drummel
To:	forum
Re:	Multiculturalism and diversity get you doomed.