Friday, April 30
Thursday, April 29
Wednesday, April 28
Tuesday, April 27
Monday, April 26
Sunday, April 25
Saturday, April 24
Friday, April 23
Thursday, April 22
Wednesday, April 21
Tuesday, April 20
Monday, April 19
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Rice Refutes New Book on Date That Bush Decided to Go to War
Sunday, April 18
Saturday, April 17
Friday, April 16
Thursday, April 15
Wednesday, April 14
bu SH IT part 2
If Bush Can't Handle a Question About Sammy Sosa, How Can He Handle America's National Security? There's No Script for Defending America, and Every Bush TV Appearance is Scripted, Even His So-Called News Conferences, With the Reporters Serving as Pawns.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash Note: More than once, BuzzFlash has reflected upon the fact that Bush's so-called "news conferences" are literally scripted events, where he has a list of reporters to call upon. Bush has made reference to this, with nervous explanations in the past, when something "unexpected" comes up from a reporter. There are even reports that he is given written questions in advance.
From last night's news conference, here is Bush again referring to the structured arrangement of his so-called news conference, which is really just a television appearance with the press corps serving as props.
From a BuzzFlash Reader:
If Bush considers a press conference "pressure", what does he do, let's say, when terrorists attack the US? Oh, right...hangs out at an elementary school reading a goat book to kids. He still has that mentality, as he obviously hates 'pop quizzes':
"Q In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE (p)RESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet...",
Liz
Additional BuzzFlash Note: The scariest thing for America is that more than 40% of Americans are willing to vote for America's village idiot.
Bush gets a question that he's not prepped for and he has no coherent answer, even when it is about the so-called "defining" moment in his stolen presidency.
We will say it again.
You can't support George Bush and care about the security or future of our country. Because if you think you do -- and you defend him -- then you are a fool who enables a man who is a threat to our national security -- and is lighting matches that are setting the world afire.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
BuzzFlash Note: More than once, BuzzFlash has reflected upon the fact that Bush's so-called "news conferences" are literally scripted events, where he has a list of reporters to call upon. Bush has made reference to this, with nervous explanations in the past, when something "unexpected" comes up from a reporter. There are even reports that he is given written questions in advance.
From last night's news conference, here is Bush again referring to the structured arrangement of his so-called news conference, which is really just a television appearance with the press corps serving as props.
From a BuzzFlash Reader:
If Bush considers a press conference "pressure", what does he do, let's say, when terrorists attack the US? Oh, right...hangs out at an elementary school reading a goat book to kids. He still has that mentality, as he obviously hates 'pop quizzes':
"Q In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you'd made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa. You've looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have you learned from it?
THE (p)RESIDENT: I wish you would have given me this written question ahead of time, so I could plan for it. (Laughter.) John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could have done it better this way, or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with an answer, but it hadn't yet...",
Liz
Additional BuzzFlash Note: The scariest thing for America is that more than 40% of Americans are willing to vote for America's village idiot.
Bush gets a question that he's not prepped for and he has no coherent answer, even when it is about the so-called "defining" moment in his stolen presidency.
We will say it again.
You can't support George Bush and care about the security or future of our country. Because if you think you do -- and you defend him -- then you are a fool who enables a man who is a threat to our national security -- and is lighting matches that are setting the world afire.
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ANALYSIS
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
The Memo's!
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0412043package1.html
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Tuesday, April 13
buSH IT
Keystone Kounter-Terror
04/12/2004 @ 5:50pm [permalink]
E-mail this Post
Only George W. Bush could study a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US", and then blithely assert that it "said nothing about an attack on America."
Note to the President: "US" is a common abbreviation for "the United States of America", the country we live in and of which you are the highest elected official, a country also often referred to in shorthand as "America." Good luck with that whole national security thing from hereon out.
The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" memo, reluctantly released this weekend, was first presented as an intelligence briefing for the President on Aug. 6, 2001 -- while he was in Texas enjoying a near-record-setting month-long siesta. Ever since -- and outrageously, even to the present day, when the actual document is out there contradicting them -- Bush and Condoleeza Rice have slyly characterized it as a brief history lesson about al-Qaida, when it is actually a reasonably specific warning.
"There was nothing in there that said, you know, 'There is an imminent attack'," Bush insisted again as late as today. "That wasn't what the report said. The report was kind of a history of Osama's intentions."
Horsefeathers. You can read the whole memo here and judge yourself. It says, among other things, that "al-Qaida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks"; that "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks"; that this suspicious activity includes "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York;" that the FBI is conducting 70 full field investigations across the country that are "bin-Laden related"; and that an anonymous tip in May 2001 warned "that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks."
In fact, this "Bin Laden to Strike" memo is a truly damning piece of evidence. If the President and his team had acted appropriately on it -- by which I mean, if he'd simply ordered his top people to get together to discuss how serious it was -- 9/11 might well have been prevented.
That's the opinion of one veteran of intelligence work for the State Department and the CIA, a man who's also a registered Republican and Bush backer. He writes:
"At a minimum, the details in the 6 August [memo] should have motivated Rice to convene a principals' meeting. Such a meeting would have ensured that all members of the president's national security team were aware of the information that had been shared with the president. George Bush should have directed the different department heads to report back within one week on any information relevant to the Al Qaeda threat. Had he done this there is a high probability that the FBI field agents' concerns about Arabs taking flight training would have rung some bells. There is also a high probability that the operations folks at CIA would have shared the information they had in hand about the presence of Al Qaeda operators in the United States."
* * *
The President counters, essentially, that he trusted the FBI to do its job. Fair enough. But consider the following exchange he had today with journalists -- and note in particular everybody's confusion about who was in charge of the FBI in those days:
Q: I'd like to take you back to August 6, 2001, if I could, and ask you about your personal response when you received the [Presidential Daily Briefing]. Do you recall whether you called Bob Mueller and asked him about what the FBI was doing, asked about these 70 field investigations? And, also, did your mind go back to the PDB when September 11th hit?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Bob Mueller wasn't the Director of the FBI at the time.
Q: Did you call the Director?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think there was a Director.
What's all this about? Well, we were between FBI directors: Louis Freeh left in June 2001, and Robert Mueller took over one week before 9/11. All that summer, the Acting Director of the FBI was a man named Thomas J. Pickard.
The President continues his remarks:
President Bush:[The Aug. 6 memo] included the fact that the FBI was conducting field investigations, which comforted me. You see, it meant the FBI was doing its job, the FBI was running down any lead. And I will tell you this, Scott [the President is addressing a journalist directly here], that had they found something, I'm confident they would have reported back to me. That's the way the system works. And whoever was the Acting FBI Director, had they found something, would have said, Mr. President, we have found something that you need to be concerned about in your duties to protect America. That didn't happen.
Hmm. Well, first of all, if the President had been truly engaged instead of vacationing, then he ought to have known "whoever was the Acting FBI Director." But the FBI director answers to the Attorney General; perhaps Bush assumed it was enough for him to be in touch with John Ashcroft on these matters.
More importantly, that particular "whoever was" -- Acting FBI Director Pickard -- will be testifying this week before the 9/11 commission. Apparently all that long summer of 2001, a frustrated Pickard was writing internal memos critical of Ashcroft's lack of interest in counterterrorism. The AG himself may have stopped flying commercial flights in July 2001 out of terrorism concerns, but that seems to have been the limit of his commitment. That, plus Ashcroft's decision on September 10, 2001, to cut the FBI's counter-terrorism budget by $58 million.
Chalk this up to yet another opportunity missed. An engaged President who had ordered his national security team to gather and discuss the Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" report might have seized it, instead of kicking back while it slipped away.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
04/12/2004 @ 5:50pm [permalink]
E-mail this Post
Only George W. Bush could study a memo titled "Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US", and then blithely assert that it "said nothing about an attack on America."
Note to the President: "US" is a common abbreviation for "the United States of America", the country we live in and of which you are the highest elected official, a country also often referred to in shorthand as "America." Good luck with that whole national security thing from hereon out.
The "Bin Laden Determined to Strike" memo, reluctantly released this weekend, was first presented as an intelligence briefing for the President on Aug. 6, 2001 -- while he was in Texas enjoying a near-record-setting month-long siesta. Ever since -- and outrageously, even to the present day, when the actual document is out there contradicting them -- Bush and Condoleeza Rice have slyly characterized it as a brief history lesson about al-Qaida, when it is actually a reasonably specific warning.
"There was nothing in there that said, you know, 'There is an imminent attack'," Bush insisted again as late as today. "That wasn't what the report said. The report was kind of a history of Osama's intentions."
Horsefeathers. You can read the whole memo here and judge yourself. It says, among other things, that "al-Qaida members -- including some who are US citizens -- have resided in or traveled to the US for years, and the group apparently maintains a support structure that could aid attacks"; that "FBI information ... indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks"; that this suspicious activity includes "recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York;" that the FBI is conducting 70 full field investigations across the country that are "bin-Laden related"; and that an anonymous tip in May 2001 warned "that a group of Bin Laden supporters was in the US planning attacks."
In fact, this "Bin Laden to Strike" memo is a truly damning piece of evidence. If the President and his team had acted appropriately on it -- by which I mean, if he'd simply ordered his top people to get together to discuss how serious it was -- 9/11 might well have been prevented.
That's the opinion of one veteran of intelligence work for the State Department and the CIA, a man who's also a registered Republican and Bush backer. He writes:
"At a minimum, the details in the 6 August [memo] should have motivated Rice to convene a principals' meeting. Such a meeting would have ensured that all members of the president's national security team were aware of the information that had been shared with the president. George Bush should have directed the different department heads to report back within one week on any information relevant to the Al Qaeda threat. Had he done this there is a high probability that the FBI field agents' concerns about Arabs taking flight training would have rung some bells. There is also a high probability that the operations folks at CIA would have shared the information they had in hand about the presence of Al Qaeda operators in the United States."
* * *
The President counters, essentially, that he trusted the FBI to do its job. Fair enough. But consider the following exchange he had today with journalists -- and note in particular everybody's confusion about who was in charge of the FBI in those days:
Q: I'd like to take you back to August 6, 2001, if I could, and ask you about your personal response when you received the [Presidential Daily Briefing]. Do you recall whether you called Bob Mueller and asked him about what the FBI was doing, asked about these 70 field investigations? And, also, did your mind go back to the PDB when September 11th hit?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Bob Mueller wasn't the Director of the FBI at the time.
Q: Did you call the Director?
PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't think there was a Director.
What's all this about? Well, we were between FBI directors: Louis Freeh left in June 2001, and Robert Mueller took over one week before 9/11. All that summer, the Acting Director of the FBI was a man named Thomas J. Pickard.
The President continues his remarks:
President Bush:[The Aug. 6 memo] included the fact that the FBI was conducting field investigations, which comforted me. You see, it meant the FBI was doing its job, the FBI was running down any lead. And I will tell you this, Scott [the President is addressing a journalist directly here], that had they found something, I'm confident they would have reported back to me. That's the way the system works. And whoever was the Acting FBI Director, had they found something, would have said, Mr. President, we have found something that you need to be concerned about in your duties to protect America. That didn't happen.
Hmm. Well, first of all, if the President had been truly engaged instead of vacationing, then he ought to have known "whoever was the Acting FBI Director." But the FBI director answers to the Attorney General; perhaps Bush assumed it was enough for him to be in touch with John Ashcroft on these matters.
More importantly, that particular "whoever was" -- Acting FBI Director Pickard -- will be testifying this week before the 9/11 commission. Apparently all that long summer of 2001, a frustrated Pickard was writing internal memos critical of Ashcroft's lack of interest in counterterrorism. The AG himself may have stopped flying commercial flights in July 2001 out of terrorism concerns, but that seems to have been the limit of his commitment. That, plus Ashcroft's decision on September 10, 2001, to cut the FBI's counter-terrorism budget by $58 million.
Chalk this up to yet another opportunity missed. An engaged President who had ordered his national security team to gather and discuss the Aug. 6, 2001, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" report might have seized it, instead of kicking back while it slipped away.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Wednesday, April 7
New Weblog added: http://amleft.blogspot.com/
Great Weblog!
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Irak worse than before War
Report: Blix Says Iraq Worse Off After War
Email this story
Apr 6, 10:17 AM (ET)
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The costs of the war in Iraq have outweighed the benefits of removing Saddam Hussein, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper.
"It's positive that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when one weighs the costs, it's clearly the negative aspects that dominate," Blix told daily Jyllands-Posten in an interview.
The Swedish diplomat has criticized the United States and Britain for going to war without U.N. approval rather than allowing his team to continue its hunt for banned weapons.
In the interview, Blix said the war had contributed to a destabilization of the Middle East and a move away from democracy in the region, adding that even though Iraqis had been spared life under a dictator, it was at too high a cost.
"Bush declared war as a part of the U.S. war on terror, but instead of limiting the effects of terror, the war has laid the foundation for even more terror," Blix said.
Blix was scorned by the United States and Britain for failing to conclude Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction ahead of their invasion. But a year on, no such weapons have been found.
Blix, a lawyer and former Swedish foreign minister who at 75 now serves as chairman of Sweden's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, retired from the United Nations last June.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Email this story
Apr 6, 10:17 AM (ET)
COPENHAGEN (Reuters) - The costs of the war in Iraq have outweighed the benefits of removing Saddam Hussein, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix told a Danish newspaper.
"It's positive that Saddam and his bloody regime is gone, but when one weighs the costs, it's clearly the negative aspects that dominate," Blix told daily Jyllands-Posten in an interview.
The Swedish diplomat has criticized the United States and Britain for going to war without U.N. approval rather than allowing his team to continue its hunt for banned weapons.
In the interview, Blix said the war had contributed to a destabilization of the Middle East and a move away from democracy in the region, adding that even though Iraqis had been spared life under a dictator, it was at too high a cost.
"Bush declared war as a part of the U.S. war on terror, but instead of limiting the effects of terror, the war has laid the foundation for even more terror," Blix said.
Blix was scorned by the United States and Britain for failing to conclude Iraq was hiding weapons of mass destruction ahead of their invasion. But a year on, no such weapons have been found.
Blix, a lawyer and former Swedish foreign minister who at 75 now serves as chairman of Sweden's Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, retired from the United Nations last June.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Monday, April 5
Who are you talking to?
Remarks by the President to the Travel Pool
Central Piedmont Community College-Central Campus
Charlotte, North Carolina
11:31 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I just met with Specialist Chris Hill's family from North Carolina. You know, I told the family how much we appreciated his sacrifice -- he was killed in Iraq -- and assured him that we would stay the course, that a free Iraq was very important for peace in the world, long-term peace, and that we're being challenged in Iraq because there are people there that hate freedom. But the family was pleased to hear that we -- its son would not have died in vain. And that's an important message that I wanted to share with you today.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?
Q I am.
THE PRESIDENT: You are?
Q Sir, in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?
Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. We're working toward that day. We're, obviously, constantly in touch with Jerry Bremer on the transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is over there now. The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. I mean, in other words, it's one thing to decide to transfer. We're now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. But, no, the date remains firm.
Stretch.
Q Mr. President, are you concerned at all that events like we've seen over the last week in Iraq are going to make it tougher to meet that deadline, or increase pressure from the U.N. or anyone else?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there's -- my judgment is, is that the closer we come to the deadline, the more likely it is people will challenge our will. In other words, it provides a convenient excuse to attack. In this particular incident, with Sadr, this is one person who is deciding that rather than allow democracy to flourish, he's going to exercise force. And we just can't let it stand. As I understand, the CPA today announced a warrant for his arrest. This is one person -- this is a person, and followers, who are trying to say, we don't want democracy -- as a matter of fact, we'll decide the course of democracy by the use of force. And that is the opposite of democracy. And it's -- that's why the CPA issued the statement they issued.
But, Stretch, I think throughout this period there's going to be tests. We were tested in Fallujah. And the desire for those who do not want there to be a free and democratic Iraq is to shake our will through acts of violence and terror. It's not only our will, it's the will of other coalition forces and it's the will of the Iraqi people. As you know, that many Iraqis have been targeted. As a matter of fact, the al Qaeda affiliate Zarqawi made it clear that part of the strategy was to turn Shia on Sunni by killing innocent Iraqis.
And we've got to stay the course, and we will stay the course. The message to the Iraqi citizens is, they don't have to fear that America will turn and run. And that's an important message for them to hear. If they think that we're not sincere about staying the course, many people will not continue to take a risk toward -- take the risk toward freedom and democracy.
Yes, Tamara.
Q Mr. President, can you tell us a little bit about your decision-making for the next ambassador to Iraq, and what you're looking for in the person who would represent the administration?
THE PRESIDENT: Good question. I am looking for somebody who can run a big embassy, somebody who understands the relationship between an embassy and the military. Because one of the things that's going to be very important for the next ambassador to Iraq -- this will be the person that takes Jerry Bremer's place -- will be the willingness and capability of working with a very strong -- a country in which there's a very strong U.S. military presence, as well as a coalition presence. This person is going to need to have enough experience to basically start an embassy from the ground up, and also be willing to transfer certain people and authorities from the CPA to the embassy itself. In other words, it's a very complex task that's going to require a skilled soul. And we're in the process of searching it out now.
Q Mr. President, can you just tell me -- the 9/11 Commission, the Chairman yesterday, Governor Kean, said a date had been set, I think, for your testimony and the Vice President's. Is that --
THE PRESIDENT: I would call it a meeting.
Q A meeting, I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Has that date been set, and could you share it with us? And number two, can you tell us the rationale as to why you have chosen to testify or rather meet with them with the Vice President?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, it will be a great opportunity from them to ask both of us our opinions on the subject. And we're meeting with the entire commission. I'm not exactly sure what the status is of putting out the date. I told them I'd meet with them at a time that's convenient for all of us, and hopefully we'll come to that date soon.
I look forward to sharing information with them. Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. And I'm convinced any other government would have, too. I mean, make no mistake about it; if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it. And what is important for them to hear, not only is that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, that this country immediately went on war footing, and we went to war against al Qaeda. It took me very little time to make up my mind, once I determined al Qaeda to do it, to say, we're going to go get them. And we have, and we're going to keep after them until they're brought to justice and America is secure.
But I'm looking forward to the conversation. I'm looking forward to Condi testifying. I made a decision to allow her to do so because I was assured that it would not jeopardize executive privilege. And she'll be great. She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place, and will lay out the facts. And that's what the commission's job is meant to do, and that's what the American people want to see. I'm looking forward to people hearing her.
All right, got to go to work. Thanks. Good to see you all.
END 11:38 A.M. EDT
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Central Piedmont Community College-Central Campus
Charlotte, North Carolina
11:31 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: I just met with Specialist Chris Hill's family from North Carolina. You know, I told the family how much we appreciated his sacrifice -- he was killed in Iraq -- and assured him that we would stay the course, that a free Iraq was very important for peace in the world, long-term peace, and that we're being challenged in Iraq because there are people there that hate freedom. But the family was pleased to hear that we -- its son would not have died in vain. And that's an important message that I wanted to share with you today.
Let me ask you a couple of questions. Who is the AP person?
Q I am.
THE PRESIDENT: You are?
Q Sir, in regard to --
THE PRESIDENT: Who are you talking to?
Q Mr. President, in regard to the June 30th deadline, is there a chance that that would be moved back?
THE PRESIDENT: No, the intention is to make sure the deadline remains the same. I believe we can transfer authority by June 30th. We're working toward that day. We're, obviously, constantly in touch with Jerry Bremer on the transfer of sovereignty. The United Nations is over there now. The United Nations representative is there now to work on the -- on a -- on to whom we transfer sovereignty. I mean, in other words, it's one thing to decide to transfer. We're now in the process of deciding what the entity will look like to whom we will transfer sovereignty. But, no, the date remains firm.
Stretch.
Q Mr. President, are you concerned at all that events like we've seen over the last week in Iraq are going to make it tougher to meet that deadline, or increase pressure from the U.N. or anyone else?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think there's -- my judgment is, is that the closer we come to the deadline, the more likely it is people will challenge our will. In other words, it provides a convenient excuse to attack. In this particular incident, with Sadr, this is one person who is deciding that rather than allow democracy to flourish, he's going to exercise force. And we just can't let it stand. As I understand, the CPA today announced a warrant for his arrest. This is one person -- this is a person, and followers, who are trying to say, we don't want democracy -- as a matter of fact, we'll decide the course of democracy by the use of force. And that is the opposite of democracy. And it's -- that's why the CPA issued the statement they issued.
But, Stretch, I think throughout this period there's going to be tests. We were tested in Fallujah. And the desire for those who do not want there to be a free and democratic Iraq is to shake our will through acts of violence and terror. It's not only our will, it's the will of other coalition forces and it's the will of the Iraqi people. As you know, that many Iraqis have been targeted. As a matter of fact, the al Qaeda affiliate Zarqawi made it clear that part of the strategy was to turn Shia on Sunni by killing innocent Iraqis.
And we've got to stay the course, and we will stay the course. The message to the Iraqi citizens is, they don't have to fear that America will turn and run. And that's an important message for them to hear. If they think that we're not sincere about staying the course, many people will not continue to take a risk toward -- take the risk toward freedom and democracy.
Yes, Tamara.
Q Mr. President, can you tell us a little bit about your decision-making for the next ambassador to Iraq, and what you're looking for in the person who would represent the administration?
THE PRESIDENT: Good question. I am looking for somebody who can run a big embassy, somebody who understands the relationship between an embassy and the military. Because one of the things that's going to be very important for the next ambassador to Iraq -- this will be the person that takes Jerry Bremer's place -- will be the willingness and capability of working with a very strong -- a country in which there's a very strong U.S. military presence, as well as a coalition presence. This person is going to need to have enough experience to basically start an embassy from the ground up, and also be willing to transfer certain people and authorities from the CPA to the embassy itself. In other words, it's a very complex task that's going to require a skilled soul. And we're in the process of searching it out now.
Q Mr. President, can you just tell me -- the 9/11 Commission, the Chairman yesterday, Governor Kean, said a date had been set, I think, for your testimony and the Vice President's. Is that --
THE PRESIDENT: I would call it a meeting.
Q A meeting, I'm sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Q Has that date been set, and could you share it with us? And number two, can you tell us the rationale as to why you have chosen to testify or rather meet with them with the Vice President?
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, it will be a great opportunity from them to ask both of us our opinions on the subject. And we're meeting with the entire commission. I'm not exactly sure what the status is of putting out the date. I told them I'd meet with them at a time that's convenient for all of us, and hopefully we'll come to that date soon.
I look forward to sharing information with them. Let me just be very clear about this: Had we had the information that was necessary to stop an attack, I'd have stopped the attack. And I'm convinced any other government would have, too. I mean, make no mistake about it; if we'd had known that the enemy was going to fly airplanes into our buildings, we'd have done everything in our power to stop it. And what is important for them to hear, not only is that, but that when I realized that the stakes had changed, that this country immediately went on war footing, and we went to war against al Qaeda. It took me very little time to make up my mind, once I determined al Qaeda to do it, to say, we're going to go get them. And we have, and we're going to keep after them until they're brought to justice and America is secure.
But I'm looking forward to the conversation. I'm looking forward to Condi testifying. I made a decision to allow her to do so because I was assured that it would not jeopardize executive privilege. And she'll be great. She's a very smart, capable person who knows exactly what took place, and will lay out the facts. And that's what the commission's job is meant to do, and that's what the American people want to see. I'm looking forward to people hearing her.
All right, got to go to work. Thanks. Good to see you all.
END 11:38 A.M. EDT
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Sunday, April 4
Nixon vs Bush
Bush's administration is worse than Nixon's, says Watergate aide
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 04/04/2004)
John Dean, Richard Nixon's legal counsel who was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal, has accused the Bush administration of trumping even the Nixon regime in secrecy, deception and political cynicism.
In the latest book to attack the conduct of the current United States administration, Mr Dean says that it has created potentially the most corrupt, unethical and undemocratic White House in history.
His Worse than Watergate, the Secret Presidency of George W. Bush is published this week by Little Brown.
"Bush and [Vice-President Richard] Cheney are a throwback to the Nixon time," Mr Dean, 65, told The Telegraph last night. "All government business is filtered through a political process at this White House, which is the most secretive ever to run the United States.
"This is not in the public's interest. It's in the White House's interest, and the interest of Bush's re-election. The White House is being run like a private business, with the difference that it is not accountable to the shareholders - in this case the voters."
His attack follows a torrid month in which the Bush administration has faced accusations from Richard Clarke, its former chief intelligence officer, that it failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before September 11.
Mr Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, initially refused to testify before a public inquiry into the events of September 11. Under intense pressure, the White House has agreed to let her testify this week.
"As with Nixon," noted Mr Dean, "the concept of executive privilege is being abused. This is about pure politics: do it as long as you can get away with it, and when you can't get away with it any more, yield."
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
By Julian Coman in Washington
(Filed: 04/04/2004)
John Dean, Richard Nixon's legal counsel who was jailed for his part in the Watergate scandal, has accused the Bush administration of trumping even the Nixon regime in secrecy, deception and political cynicism.
In the latest book to attack the conduct of the current United States administration, Mr Dean says that it has created potentially the most corrupt, unethical and undemocratic White House in history.
His Worse than Watergate, the Secret Presidency of George W. Bush is published this week by Little Brown.
"Bush and [Vice-President Richard] Cheney are a throwback to the Nixon time," Mr Dean, 65, told The Telegraph last night. "All government business is filtered through a political process at this White House, which is the most secretive ever to run the United States.
"This is not in the public's interest. It's in the White House's interest, and the interest of Bush's re-election. The White House is being run like a private business, with the difference that it is not accountable to the shareholders - in this case the voters."
His attack follows a torrid month in which the Bush administration has faced accusations from Richard Clarke, its former chief intelligence officer, that it failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously enough before September 11.
Mr Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, initially refused to testify before a public inquiry into the events of September 11. Under intense pressure, the White House has agreed to let her testify this week.
"As with Nixon," noted Mr Dean, "the concept of executive privilege is being abused. This is about pure politics: do it as long as you can get away with it, and when you can't get away with it any more, yield."
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Saturday, April 3
New Column added on the Chenn site....
Column of April added...
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Friday, April 2
New Promo Cards of 'our' Che
A you might know from the website (www.heyche.com) we are preparing a documentary about Che. Today we are starting to give promo cards away here in Barcelona. If you are at the Ramblas and you see Ruben, ask for you free copy.
If you like one yourself, send me your address and I will make sure you get one.,,
If you like one yourself, send me your address and I will make sure you get one.,,
Breaking News about Che Movie
'Regime change for 'Che' '
By Michael Fleming
Variety.com
April 2, 2004
Steven Soderbergh will replace Terrence Malick as the director of "Che," the film about Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara that will star Benicio Del Toro.
Bill Pohlad's River Road is the film's principal financier; because of that company's deal with Focus Features, Focus is in early talks to distribute.
Soderbergh has committed to begin production in South America in August 2005, and he will supervise the writing of a new script.
The story of Che, a handsome and charismatic physician killed while still a young man, has attracted attention from many filmmakers over the years.
The helming change resulted after Malick abruptly dropped his plan to shoot "Che" this summer and instead committed to direct a film he'd been developing simultaneously, Colin Farrell starrer "The New World," for New Line.
Malick, who had written the "Che" script with Del Toro and Ben Vanderveen, told the producers and financiers of "Che" that he intended to return and shoot the film a year later. But his withdrawal was unsettling for foreign distribs that had bought rights to the film at AFM from Gallic sales outfit Wild Bunch.
Some of that bitterness will evaporate with the emergence of Soderbergh, who originally intended to direct "Che" when he, Del Toro and producer Laura Bickford hatched the film after they made "Traffic," a film that won Oscars for both the director and star.
Malick got the directing job only after Soderbergh stepped back into a producing role because his commitment to the sequel "Ocean's Twelve" left him unavailable for a 2004 start date. Soderbergh begins shooting the "Ocean's Eleven" sequel next week.
Bickford, Soderbergh and Del Toro will produce with Pohlad. VIP/Rising Star is expected to return as a financier and producer, as will Wild Bunch.
The producers also hope that Javier Bardem, Benjamin Bratt, Ryan Gosling and Franka Potente will remain involved if their schedules allow them to be in South America next year. That quartet had been set to play Guevara's key group of revolutionaries.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
By Michael Fleming
Variety.com
April 2, 2004
Steven Soderbergh will replace Terrence Malick as the director of "Che," the film about Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara that will star Benicio Del Toro.
Bill Pohlad's River Road is the film's principal financier; because of that company's deal with Focus Features, Focus is in early talks to distribute.
Soderbergh has committed to begin production in South America in August 2005, and he will supervise the writing of a new script.
The story of Che, a handsome and charismatic physician killed while still a young man, has attracted attention from many filmmakers over the years.
The helming change resulted after Malick abruptly dropped his plan to shoot "Che" this summer and instead committed to direct a film he'd been developing simultaneously, Colin Farrell starrer "The New World," for New Line.
Malick, who had written the "Che" script with Del Toro and Ben Vanderveen, told the producers and financiers of "Che" that he intended to return and shoot the film a year later. But his withdrawal was unsettling for foreign distribs that had bought rights to the film at AFM from Gallic sales outfit Wild Bunch.
Some of that bitterness will evaporate with the emergence of Soderbergh, who originally intended to direct "Che" when he, Del Toro and producer Laura Bickford hatched the film after they made "Traffic," a film that won Oscars for both the director and star.
Malick got the directing job only after Soderbergh stepped back into a producing role because his commitment to the sequel "Ocean's Twelve" left him unavailable for a 2004 start date. Soderbergh begins shooting the "Ocean's Eleven" sequel next week.
Bickford, Soderbergh and Del Toro will produce with Pohlad. VIP/Rising Star is expected to return as a financier and producer, as will Wild Bunch.
The producers also hope that Javier Bardem, Benjamin Bratt, Ryan Gosling and Franka Potente will remain involved if their schedules allow them to be in South America next year. That quartet had been set to play Guevara's key group of revolutionaries.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Thursday, April 1
Movie About Tania...?
Hermann ankles MTM 03/29/2004
Sun Mar 28, 7:00 PM ET
Christian Koehl, STAFF
COLOGNE - Peter Herrmann, producer of last year's foreign-lingo Oscar winner "Nowhere in Africa," has ankled shingle MTM to establish his own company.
In 1994 Hermann formed MTM Medien & Television Muenchen with Gloria Burkert and Andreas Bareiss, and the group soon developed a track record of local successes with sophisticated drama including boxer biopic "The Bubi Scholz Story" and "Deathmaker," both starring Goetz George.
With his new unit PH-Film, also based in Munich, Herrmann said he aims to arrange international financing of German pics. He recently nabbed the rights for million-selling autobiography "Desert Flower" by Waris Diries, the nomad girl from Somalia who became a supermodel in London. Also projected is "Tanja - La Guerrillera," a biopic about Tamara Bunke, who in the '60s left East Germany to become a guerrilla fighter with Che Guevara.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Sun Mar 28, 7:00 PM ET
Christian Koehl, STAFF
COLOGNE - Peter Herrmann, producer of last year's foreign-lingo Oscar winner "Nowhere in Africa," has ankled shingle MTM to establish his own company.
In 1994 Hermann formed MTM Medien & Television Muenchen with Gloria Burkert and Andreas Bareiss, and the group soon developed a track record of local successes with sophisticated drama including boxer biopic "The Bubi Scholz Story" and "Deathmaker," both starring Goetz George.
With his new unit PH-Film, also based in Munich, Herrmann said he aims to arrange international financing of German pics. He recently nabbed the rights for million-selling autobiography "Desert Flower" by Waris Diries, the nomad girl from Somalia who became a supermodel in London. Also projected is "Tanja - La Guerrillera," a biopic about Tamara Bunke, who in the '60s left East Germany to become a guerrilla fighter with Che Guevara.
All copyrights are owned by the stated sources.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
