R. Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, is preparing to leave the White House, although no date has been set for his departure.

Hubbard, the architect of President Bush's $364 billion proposal to slash taxes on investment dividends, was widely seen as a rising star in Washington. But according to sources inside and close to the administration, the Columbia University economist was turned down in recent days for the position of deputy Treasury secretary, the post he really wanted. The current deputy, Kenneth W. Dam, has announced his departure.

Responding to a report of his departure in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, Hubbard told reporters in Philadelphia yesterday, "At some point I will [leave], but I don't want to comment on the specific times. But obviously at some point -- I'm not a lifer."

Hubbard's wife and two young sons have continued to live in New York since Hubbard joined the White House economic team. His wife, Constance Pond, acknowledged the strain that the commute has placed on the family. But, she stressed, Hubbard has not said when he would be returning to New York.

It will probably not be too much longer, however. In recent days, senior White House officials have been interviewing Hubbard's apparent successor, N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University economist. Like Hubbard, Mankiw is regarded as something of a wunderkind in economic circles and is the author of a noted economics textbook.

Mankiw is a protege of Martin S. Feldstein, an elder statesman among conservative economists who has strongly influenced Bush's economic policies. Critics of those policies have cited both Mankiw's and Hubbard's textbooks to counter administration claims that the growing federal budget deficit will do little harm to the economy.

Sources close to Hubbard caution that it is not yet certain where Hubbard will go.

Peter R. Fisher, undersecretary of the Treasury for domestic finance, is hoping to take charge of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, possibly leaving open a top spot at Treasury for Hubbard, who has been eager to take a senior policymaking position. But some Hubbard confidants said he would regard the undersecretary position as a demotion from his current post. For months, they added, Hubbard has been telling White House officials that he would have to leave Washington to rejoin his family.

After seeing the Wall Street Journal report, White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. told the C-SPAN cable television network, "Like me and a few others in this administration, his family is still . . . in New York, and he and I have talked many times about how wearisome it is to be away from the family as much as that."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Commentary:
For months the media has said Bush is loyal and those who work for him are loyal. Where? I don't see it. In fact, I see the opposite. The word TITANIC enters my mind. Everyone is leaving because they know this ship is sinking. Deputy Treasury Secretary Kenneth Dam is expected to be the next to leave. What do they know that we don't?

He doesn't look particularly fearsome, a bearded professor in a pullover sweater and thick-soled shoes. He spends part of his time preparing to teach Economics 101. He also writes a New York Times column in which he repeatedly, loudly and unambiguously calls the president of the United States a liar.

Paul Krugman says he just sort of stumbled into his role as perhaps the harshest journalistic critic of the Bush administration.

"I certainly am angry," he says in a quiet monotone that doesn't quite match his rhetoric. "I just resent being lied to. We've been lied to a lot, and I'm scared. I think we're talking about levels of irresponsibility here that have real consequences."

And why have few other commentators, even those as liberal as Krugman, been so ferocious in denouncing George W. Bush?

"It's a very uncomfortable thing to question the honesty and motives of your leaders," the Princeton academic says. "I'm saying that the men who are controlling our destiny are lying. Not many journalists or many people want to confront them. . . . I probably have a bloody-mindedness that a longtime journalist wouldn't."

To some, this makes Krugman, 49, an ideologue, a Democratic partisan whose predictability is exceeded only by his shrillness. "He's gotten very personal and vitriolic," says CNBC commentator Lawrence Kudlow, a conservative economist who has tangled with Krugman. "He doesn't really do any analysis and never lets on that the other side might have a point. His economic credentials have kind of evaporated, and he's become a left-wing political spear carrier."

Liberals, meanwhile, see Krugman as their new champion. "He goes completely against the cognoscenti," says James Carville, the Democratic strategist and CNN talking head. "The average dinner-party-guest editorial writer would say Bush has got some faults, but he's a straight-talking, honest guy. Krugman is just relentless in saying this guy lacks any honesty and integrity in everything he does. He says Bush is a fraud, and he never stops -- he says it over and over."

The Washington Monthly has pronounced Krugman "the most important political columnist in America." To Editor & Publisher, he is a "lightning rod" so electric that the magazine named him columnist of the year.

"He's intense, certainly, and very, very smart," says Alan Blinder, a fellow economics professor at Princeton and former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve. "He feels he's on a crusade for truth and justice. When I see him, he's always grousing about the latest thing out of the White House."

What makes Krugman's rapid rise even more remarkable is that he rarely ventures from his Ivy League enclave to either Washington or New York and almost never talks to the people he is writing about. An international trade expert, he merely moonlights as a Times pontificator and is more worried at the moment about finishing a new textbook, "Principles of Economics."

Still, he churns out column after column with headlines like "Clueless in Crawford," ripping Bush on Social Security, on energy, on corporate reform, on tax cuts, on government secrecy, on air pollution, portraying the president and his team as not just wrong or misguided but deliberately deceptive.

Hasn't Bush done anything that would interrupt the drumbeat of Krugman criticism?

"Very little has actually been accomplished, and just about everything that has been accomplished I think was bad," he says during a break at an economic conference in Washington at which he is recruiting faculty for Princeton. "What do I do? Do I stretch to find things that I approve of, which would basically be dishonest, just for the sake of writing a favorable column?"

What about the Democrats? Why has Krugman, a registered Democrat, failed to take on a party that has been floundering without a message?

"It hardly seems worth it," he says. "They don't have a whole lot of power."

Commentary:
The press continues to make goo-goo with Bush. His policies are an utter failure, with deficits this year expected to be in excess of $200 billion and likely to reach $300 billion. We haven't had a failed president like this since Reagan (who created more debt than all previous presidents in history combined). The press loved Reagan as they love Bush. Why is that do you think? Simple...the press is owned by corporations and they got her taxes cut. Are they gin to bite the hand that feeds them? Not a chance. So Bush gets a free ride and the rest of us get to pick up the bill. Deficits equal future taxes plus interest--when will the press and the republican party tell the truth?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Richard A. Clarke, a blunt-spoken White House adviser who raised warnings about Islamic terrorism and biological weapons years before they became nightmare headlines, will resign from government soon, people familiar with his plans said.

Clarke, the president's counterterrorism coordinator at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, was disinclined to accept a senior position in the new Homeland Security Department and planned to retire after three decades with the government, these people said. He has not yet solicited an outside job, they said.

These people, working both inside and outside government, spoke on condition of anonymity but said Clarke personally described his plans to them. Clarke did not return telephone calls from The Associated Press over three days.

Clarke, currently the nation's top cyber-security adviser, is best known for his success in identifying emerging issues and outlasting his critics. He has focused most recently on preventing disruptions to important computer networks from Internet attacks. But he has tempered warnings about a "digital Pearl Harbor" after some industry experts mocked them as overblown.

With much of the White House evacuated for safety in the hours after the September 11 attacks, Clarke worked in the situation room there with National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Vice President Dick Cheney as stunned leaders planned what to do next. His supporters said Clarke played a central role in the unprecedented decision to quickly ground the nation's airliners.

Clarke previously led the government's secretive Counterterrorism and Security Group, made up of senior officials from the FBI, CIA, Justice Department and armed services, who met several times each week to discuss foreign threats.

"It was really the engine room of the anti-terrorism effort," said Sandy Berger, Clinton's former national security adviser and Clarke's former boss. "He's not an easy guy. He's very demanding. More than once people would come to me and complain, but that's why I wanted Dick in that job: He was pushing the bureaucracy."

Clarke also had the ear of President Clinton about the risks from a biological attack, years before anthrax poisoned the U.S. mail.

"Dick was the single most effective person I worked with in the federal government," said Jonathan M. Winer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state. "When he was given the authority, he would stay with something every day until it got done. He's efficient and tough-minded. I never saw anyone else as good."

Clarke is known for his aggressive -- sometimes abrasive -- personality and for his willingness to bypass bureaucratic channels. Under Clinton, he was known to contact Special Forces and other military commanders in the field directly, irritating the Joint Chiefs at the Pentagon.

Clarke was "a bulldog of a bureaucrat," wrote former national security adviser Anthony Lake in a book two years ago. He said Clarke has "a bluntness toward those at his level that has not earned him universal affection."

Some senior CIA officials under Clinton complained that Clarke pressed them to launch covert programs without adequate preparation or study, said Vincent Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism chief.

"He gave the impression he was somewhat of a cowboy," Cannistraro said. "There was no love lost between Clarke and the CIA."

Clarke managed largely to avoid Washington's finger-pointing over failures to anticipate the September 11 attacks, even though he was the top counterterrorism adviser and he was replaced by the White House in that role less than one month later.

"Dick in both the Clinton and Bush administrations was the voice pushing this forward, calling out about the dangers," said William Wechsler, a former director for transnational threats on the National Security Council.

"There's an easy reason why no one is pointing the finger at him."

The security council's director for counterterrorism under Clinton, Daniel Benjamin, described Clarke as "a visionary in terms of pushing hard to recognize the dangers of al Qaeda; certainly the new administration should have attended to his thoughts a little more."

Clarke already has submitted his resignation letter to the president, one person said. Clarke is among the country's longest-serving White House staffers, hired in 1992 from the State Department to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

A spokeswoman, Tiffany Olson, said Clarke, who reports to Rice and Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge, hasn't told White House staff at the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board that he plans to leave.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Commentary:
I've included this article because the only thing Bush did that was right on 9/11 was ground the airlines. It's too bad Clark's name isn't known by every American. We can't guess how many lives HIS idea saved.

Seattle, WA -- The U.S. District Court in Seattle last week ordered the Bush administration to comply with a court order and appoint an environmentalist to a federal committee that advises the government on international trade in chemicals. The Bush administration had rejected a nominee proposed by the environmental community, instead appointing an academic with deep industry ties to serve as the "environmental" representative. The chemical panel, known as ISAC-3, is one of 17 sectoral advisory committees whose members shape U.S. policy and have access to confidential trade texts and documents. This ruling marks the third decision against the Bush administration on trade issues since mid-December 2002.

"International commercial agreements like NAFTA and the WTO have significant impacts on public health and the environment. When U.S. trade policy is dictated by an advisory board dominated by industry, those issues get short shrift. This decision will help balance the playing field," said Earthjustice attorney Patti Goldman.

Added Mary Bottari, director of Public Citizen's Harmonization Project, "This is the third time in the past month that a court was needed to check the outrageous and illegal behavior of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). How many times must the USTR be told by federal courts that closed-door decision-making must end?"

The ruling follows an action taken on Dec. 18 by attorneys at Earthjustice, representing Public Citizen, the Washington Toxics Coalition and the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange, to protest the appointment of Brian Mannix. The groups asked the court to order the Bush administration to follow through on its commitment made in prior litigation to appoint an environmentalist to the 23-member committee, which is already packed with chemical industry executives. Mannix, a fellow at the Mercatus Center, a conservative research center at George Mason University, had also served as research director for the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation and has often opposed regulatory approaches to environmental problems.

The Court found that the appointment of Mannix fell short of achieving the Federal Advisory Committee Act's (FACA) requirement that appointments to federal advisory committees be "fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented."

In her decision, Judge Barbara Rothstein said that there is nothing to indicate that Mannix "has ever been affiliated with any environmental group or ever advocated on behalf of protecting the environment. The court is, therefore, unpersuaded that Mr. Mannix's appointment provides a voice for the environmental community on ISAC-3."

On June 29, 2001, at the groups' urging, Greenpeace USA nominated Rick Hind, the legislative director for its toxics campaign, for the position. On Dec. 16, 2002, 18 months after his nomination, Hind received official notice that he would not be appointed to the committee. Although Hind's nomination was supported by a broad range of environmental organizations, the USTR did not explain why he was not an acceptable candidate. Mannix's appointment was announced Dec. 17, 2002.

The environmental community will now nominate a new member to the Chemicals and Allied Products Advisory Committee.

Court order.

STRIKE THREE

This decision was the third ruling against the Bush administration on trade in recent weeks:

• On Jan. 16, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said that the Bush administration violated federal environmental law by opening the border to Mexico-domiciled trucks without first reviewing the possible environmental impacts. The administration had announced last November it was opening U.S. highways to long-haul trucks from Mexico in order to comply with the North American Free Trade Agreement. In this case, the 9th Circuit add: "Although we agree with the importance of the United States' compliance with its treaty obligations … such compliance cannot come at the cost of violating United States law." More information.
• Dec. 19, 2002, a U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., ordered the Bush administration to make public documents revealing U.S. and foreign government positions in U.S.-Chile trade negotiations with potential impacts on domestic public health, labor and environmental laws. "From now on the government can no longer negotiate in secret, hiding its actions from the public until it's too late to change the terms of the agreement. The court's decision will give the public the information it needs to make sure the government is truly negotiating in the people's interest," said Martin Wagner of Earthjustice, who represented a coalition of environmental and consumer groups in that case. More information. LITIGATION FOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE FAIRNESS BEGAN IN 1999.

This litigation began over the imbalance of environmental and public health representatives on key trade advisory committees and follows several lawsuits undertaken by Public Citizen in the mid-1990s. The Trade Act of 1974 directs the USTR and the Department of Commerce (DOC) to obtain advice and information from a series of trade advisory committees on the administration of U.S. trade policy, including negotiating objectives, bargaining positions and the implementation and ongoing operation of trade agreements.

Among the trade advisory committees organized and utilized by the USTR and DOC are the Industry Sector Advisory Committees. The mission of ISAC-3 on Chemicals and Allied Products encompasses virtually all aspects of the development and implementation of U.S. trade policy relating to chemicals, including specific strategies and bargaining positions regarding regulation.

Nearly every member of ISAC-3 is either an executive of a chemical or allied products company, such as DuPont, Eli Lilly and 3M, or a representative of a chemical or allied products trade association. Yet FACA requires agency heads and other federal officials creating advisory committees to ensure that the membership of the committee is balanced in terms of the points of view represented. The Trade Act expressly provides that the FACA fair balance requirement shall apply to all ISACs.

In April 2000, Public Citizen, the Washington Toxics Coalition and the Asia Pacific Environmental Exchange sued the Clinton administration in federal court to force some element of balance on the chemicals committee. Patti Goldman of Earthjustice represented the groups. Because the groups had been successful in related suits, both the Clinton and Bush administrations agreed to appoint an environmentalist rather than continue to litigate the issue.

Commentary:
Bush is ordered by the Court to appoint an environmentalist as required by a prior court ruling. He refuses. The only way this president will follow the law is if someone forces him to. Bush should be impeached for violating a court order.

When President Bush traveled to the United Nations in September to make his case against Iraq, he brought along a rare piece of evidence for what he called Iraq's "continued appetite" for nuclear bombs. The finding: Iraq had tried to buy thousands of high-strength aluminum tubes, which Bush said were "used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon."

Bush cited the aluminum tubes in his speech before the U.N. General Assembly and in documents presented to U.N. leaders. Vice President Cheney and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice both repeated the claim, with Rice describing the tubes as "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs."

It was by far the most prominent, detailed assertion by the White House of recent Iraqi efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But according to government officials and weapons experts, the claim now appears to be seriously in doubt.

After weeks of investigation, U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq are increasingly confident that the aluminum tubes were never meant for enriching uranium, according to officials familiar with the inspection process. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the U.N.-chartered nuclear watchdog, reported in a Jan. 8 preliminary assessment that the tubes were "not directly suitable" for uranium enrichment but were "consistent" with making ordinary artillery rockets -- a finding that meshed with Iraq's official explanation for the tubes. New evidence supporting that conclusion has been gathered in recent weeks and will be presented to the U.N. Security Council in a report due to be released on Monday, the officials said.

Moreover, there were clues from the beginning that should have raised doubts about claims that the tubes were part of a secret Iraqi nuclear weapons program, according to U.S. and international experts on uranium enrichment. The quantity and specifications of the tubes -- narrow, silver cylinders measuring 81 millimeters in diameter and about a meter in length -- made them ill-suited to enrich uranium without extensive modification, the experts said.

But they are a perfect fit for a well-documented 81mm conventional rocket program in place for two decades. Iraq imported the same aluminum tubes for rockets in the 1980s. The new tubes it tried to purchase actually bear an inscription that includes the word "rocket," according to one official who examined them.

"It may be technically possible that the tubes could be used to enrich uranium," said one expert familiar with the investigation of Iraq's attempted acquisition. "But you'd have to believe that Iraq deliberately ordered the wrong stock and intended to spend a great deal of time and money reworking each piece."

As the U.N. inspections continue, some weapons experts said the aluminum tubes saga could undermine the credibility of claims about Iraq's arsenal. To date, the Bush administration has declined to release photos or other specific evidence to bolster its contention that Iraq is actively seeking to acquire new biological, chemical and nuclear arms, and the means to deliver them.

The U.N. inspections earlier this month turned up 16 empty chemical warheads for short-range, 122mm rockets. ,But inspectors said that so far they have found no conclusive proof of a new Iraqi effort to acquire weapons of mass destruction in searches of facilities that had been identified as suspicious in U.S. and British intelligence reports. U.N. officials contend that Iraq retains biological and chemical weapons and components it acquired before the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

"If the U.S. government puts out bad information it runs a risk of undermining the good information it possesses," said David Albright, a former IAEA weapons inspector who has investigated Iraq's past nuclear programs extensively. "In this case, I fear that the information was put out there for a short-term political goal: to convince people that Saddam Hussein is close to acquiring nuclear weapons."

The Bush administration, while acknowledging the IAEA's findings on the aluminum tubes, has not retreated from its earlier statements. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer reacted to the IAEA's initial report on Jan. 8 by asserting that the case was still open.

"It should be noted," Fleischer said, "that the attempted acquisition of such tubes is prohibited under the United Nations resolutions in any case." U.N. sanctions restrict Iraq's ability to import "dual-use" items that potentially could be used for weapons.

U.S. intelligence officials contend that the evidence, on balance, still points to a secret uranium enrichment program, although there is significant disagreement within the intelligence services. Those supporting the nuclear theory said they were influenced by "other intelligence" beyond the specifications of the tubes themselves, according to one intelligence official. He did not elaborate.

IAEA officials said the investigation of the tubes officially remains open. Earlier this week, Iraq agreed to provide inspectors with additional data about its intended use for the tubes.

The controversy stems from a series of Iraqi attempts to purchase large quantities -- thousands or tens of thousands -- of high-strength aluminum tubes over the last two years. Apparently none of the attempts succeeded, although in one instance in 2001 a shipment of more than 60,000 Chinese-made aluminum tubes made it as far as Jordan before it was intercepted, according to officials familiar with Iraq's procurement attempts.

Since then, the officials said, Iraq has made at least two other attempts to acquire the tubes. The more recent attempts involved private firms located in what was described only as a "NATO country." In all, more than 120,000 of the tubes were reportedly sought.

In each of the attempts, Iraq requested tubes made of an aluminum alloy with precise dimensions and high tolerances for heat and stress. To intelligence analysts, the requests had a ring of familiarity: Iraq had imported aluminum tubes in the 1980s, although with different specifications and much larger diameter, to build gas centrifuges -- fast-spinning machines used in enriching uranium for nuclear weapons. Through a crash nuclear program launched in 1990, Iraq succeeded in enriching nearly enough uranium for one bomb before its plans were disrupted in 1991 by the start of the Gulf War, according to U.N. weapons inspectors.

By several accounts, Iraq's recent attempts to buy aluminum tubes sparked a rancorous debate as Bush administration officials, intelligence analysts and government scientists argued over Iraq's intent.

"A number of people argued that the tubes could not possibly be used as artillery rockets because the specifications were so precise. It would be a waste of dollars," said one knowledgeable scientist.

Ultimately, the conclusion in the intelligence discussion was that Iraq was planning to use the tubes in a nuclear program. This view was favored by CIA analysts. However, there were dissenting arguments by enrichment experts at the Energy Department and officials at the State Department. What ultimately swung the argument in favor of the nuclear theory was the observation that Iraq had attempted to purchase aluminum tubes with such precise specifications that it made other uses seem unlikely, officials said.

By contrast, in Britain, the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair said in a Sept. 24 white paper that there was "no definitive intelligence" that the tubes were destined for a nuclear program.

The tubes were made of an aluminum-zinc alloy known as 7000-series, which is used in a wide range of industrial applications. But the dimensions and technical features, such as metal thickness and surface coatings, made them an unlikely choice for centrifuges, several nuclear experts said. Iraq used a different aluminum alloy in its centrifuges in the 1980s before switching to more advanced metals known as maraging steel and carbon fibers, which are better suited for the task, the experts said.

Significantly, there is no evidence so far that Iraq sought other materials required for centrifuges, such as motors, metal caps and special magnets, U.S. and international officials said.

Bush's remarks about the aluminum tubes caused a stir at the IAEA's headquarters in Vienna. Weapons experts at the agency had also been monitoring Iraq's attempts to buy the aluminum but were skeptical of arguments that the tubes had a nuclear purpose, according to one official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The IAEA spent seven years in the 1990s documenting and ultimately destroying all known vestiges of Iraq's nuclear weapons program, including its gas centrifuges.

After returning to Iraq when weapons inspections resumed in November, the IAEA made it a priority to sort out the conflicting claims, according to officials familiar with the probe. In December, the agency spent several days poring through files and interviewing people involved in the attempted acquisition of the tubes -- including officials at the company that supplied the metal and managers of the Baghdad importing firm that apparently had been set up as a front company to acquire special parts and materials for Iraq's Ministry of Industry. According to informed officials, the IAEA concluded Iraq had indeed been running a secret procurement operation, but the intended beneficiary was not Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission; rather, it was an established army program to replace Iraq's aging arsenal of conventional 81mm rockets, the type used in multiple rocket launchers.

The explanation made sense for several reasons, they said. In the 1980s, Iraq was known to have obtained a design for 81mm rockets through reverse-engineering of munitions it had previously purchased abroad. During the Iran-Iraq war, Iraqis built tens of thousands of such rockets, using high-strength, 7000-series aluminum tubes it bought from foreign suppliers. U.N. inspectors in the 1990s had allowed Iraq to retain a stockpile of about 160,000 of the 81mm rockets, and an inspection of the stockpile last month confirmed that the rockets still exist, though now corroded after years of exposure in outdoor depots.

By all appearances, the Iraqis were "trying to buy exact replacements for those rockets," said Albright, the former IAEA inspector.

Albright, now president of the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington research group, said that even a less sinister explanation for the aluminum tubes did not suggest Iraq is entirely innocent.

"But if Iraq does have a centrifuge program, it is well-hidden, and it is important for us to come up with information that will help us find it," Albright said. "This incident discredits that effort at a time when we can least afford it."

Staff writer Walter Pincus contributed to this report.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Photo/courtesy International Atomic Energy Agency

Commentary:
So here we have it. The entire excuse to go to war with Iraq, the excuse to do inspections etc., was based on the false assumption that these aluminum tubes were being used to make nukes. Bush lied to the American people, the world and the UN General Assembly.

France isn't with us anymore, neither is Germany and Russia and China are siding with France and opposing the US in the UN. Bush is in a pile of crap. He needs to manufacture new evidence as quickly as possible so he can have his war just like daddy.

Bush has disgraced the office of the presidency by lying to us about national security and is attempting to wage war based on those lies. For this he must be impeached and removed from office.

Has it every occurred to the media that we should have just a little proof before we go to war? Everytime you hear one of those stores about going to war on your evening news, ask yourself what Iraq has done to us. Ask what the proof is, ask why Bush lied to you and ask why the press is pandering to his war effort.

WASHINGTON –– A Christian activist chosen by the White House for a presidential AIDS advisory panel is withdrawing his name under pressure after characterizing the disease as the "gay plague," along with other anti-homosexual statements.

The administration had chosen Jerry Thacker to serve on the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. He was to be sworn in along with other new commission members next week by Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.

On Thursday, however, Thacker was sending a letter signaling that he would not accept the appointment, administration officials said.

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, while neither confirming nor denying the withdrawal, issued a stern rebuke of Thacker's statements.

"The views that he holds are far, far removed from what the president believes," Fleischer said. "The president has a total opposite view. ... The president's view is that people with AIDS need to be treated with care, compassion."

The administration's choice of the Pennsylvania marketing consultant had come under severe criticism from gay rights groups and others. Thacker contracted the AIDS virus after his wife was infected during a blood transfusion received during childbirth. Their daughter also is HIV-positive.

Thacker, a graduate of Bob Jones University, is founder of the Scepter Institute. At one point, his biography on the Scepter Web site referred to AIDS as the "gay plague." It now calls AIDS a "plague." Thacker has referred to gay people as practicing a "deathstyle," rather than a lifestyle, and has described homosexuality as a sin that can be cured by Christianity.

Like the Bush administration, he promotes abstinence from sex as the way to prevent HIV infection. "For the unmarried, the only truly 'safe sex' is not to have sex," Thacker has written.

He describes himself as an activist in the Christian community.

In September 2001, Thacker returned to his alma mater to give two "Chapel Messages." As once summarized on the university Web site, the speeches focused on the "sin of homosexuality" and his family's struggle with AIDS and its association with gays.

"Be compassionate to those caught up in this sinful deathstyle. Let them know you care, but at the same time let them know homosexuality is a sin. Most people find the homosexual behavior vile and disgusting. Only when homosexuals know it is sin can they repent," said the summary.

It also said: "Many people believe that AIDS is the judgment of God on our nation, but Mr. Thacker believes that homosexuality is the judgment of God on America."

The 35-member AIDS commission advises the White House on AIDS prevention and treatment policy.

David Smith of the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, applauded the news that Thacker would not join the panel but said Bush administration AIDS policies still fall far short.

"While this is a positive development, the underlying problem continues to remain with this administration's approach to HIV and AIDS," Smith said. "They're obsessive focus on abstinence as the solitary mechanism to prevent the transmission of HIV is not based in sound science. They continue to come from an ideological perspective as opposed to a scientific perspective."

© 2003 The Associated Press

Commentary:
To be a conservative must really suck, but to be a Conservative Christian has got to suck even more, but what sucks more than that? A Conservative Christian Homophobe!

Bush once said he wanted to bring us together. Yeah right. Bring us together to kill and hate in the name of religion and whatever version of god he has. This guy comes from Bob Jones University, a racist institution. Thank god Bush never, NEVER plays the race card.

VVA Outraged by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's Draft Remarks To: National Desk
Contact: Mokie Porter for Vietnam Veterans of America, 301-585-4000

WASHINGTON, Jan. 15 /U.S. Newswire/ -- "We are deeply disappointed by the Secretary of Defense's disparaging remarks last week regarding Vietnam War draftees. These remarks defame the honorable and distinguished service of over 1.7 million draftees during the Vietnam Era," Vietnam Veterans of America national President Thomas H. Corey said today. "The Secretary's comments are without foundation at best and insulting at worst."

Corey was responding to remarks made Wednesday, Jan. 8, by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time."

"Secretary Rumsfeld should know that the Vietnam War could not have continued for 10 years without a military draft of honorable Americans who accepted their military obligation as citizens of this great country," Corey said. "The United States won every military confrontation with the enemy in Vietnam, and that was accomplished with the devoted and often heroic service of many tens of thousands of draftees. Further, a system of military conscription has been used in most of America's wars, including World War II, World War I, and the Civil War."

Rumsfeld made his remarks in response to a call last week by Congressman Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) to reinstate the draft.

"More than 17,000 of the more than 58,000 men and women whose names are on The Wall were draftees," Corey continued. "It is wrong for anyone to demean their memories and insult their families as the Secretary did last week. Similarly, it is wrong to demean the hundreds of thousands of us who were wounded and disabled as a result of our honorable service. Our service did have value. Most of us went on to make significant contributions to America in civilian life that are valued by our families, our friends, our communities, and by most Americans."

"At a bare minimum, the Secretary owes an apology to the families of those draftees whose names are inscribed on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, and those who served with them," Corey said.

------

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is the nation's only congressionally chartered veterans service organization dedicated to the needs of Vietnam-era veterans and their families. VVA's founding principle is "Never again will one generation of veterans abandon another."

http://www.usnewswire.com
-0-
/U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
01/15 11:20

Copyright 2003, U.S. Newswire

Commentary:
What can I say? These people are beyond contempt. It doesn't matter what you think about the Vietnam War, but to suggest "that draftees added "no value, no advantage, really, to the United States Armed Services over any sustained period of time," is appalling. Rumsfeld was responding to questions about the draft--should all Americans fight our wars, or just those who volunteer? The quote above is his answer--no draft because draftee's add no value.

Does giving ones body and soul to serve his country count for anything to these power-hunger thugs? Ok, this one has me really pissed off.

Update: Rumsfeld has apologized (if you want to call it that)saying; "They added great value. I was commenting on the loss of that value when they left the service." Some people will believe that half-baked apology. Read his comments again, then read what he said he meant. He's LYING again.

The public is skeptical about whether President Bush's new economic stimulus plan will do much to help growth in the economy, according to a new poll.

Only a third, 35 percent, say they expect the stimulus plan will be fairly effective or very effective at helping the economy. Another four in 10 said it could be "somewhat effective."

The poll by NBC and The Wall Street Journal released Thursday shows that the president's overall job approval is at 54 percent, down from 62 percent a month ago. About four in 10 disapproved of his handling of his job.

Several other recent polls have shown Bush's job approval slipping into the 50s. Fewer than half support his handling of the economy, 44 percent, and about half supported his handling of foreign policy, 51 percent.

The poll results underscore the pressure on Bush to convince Americans in his State of the Union address next week that he has an effective plan to restore the economy and convince them on his Iraq policy.

Bush still has a commanding lead over potential Democratic rivals in head-to-head matchups, though that lead is dwindling.

About a third, 32 percent, said their opinion of Bush's performance has gotten worse in recent months, while 14 percent said it has gotten better.

The poll of 1,025 adults was taken Jan. 19-21 and has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

© 2003 The Associated Press

Commentary:
Do you feel sorry for Bush yet? His presidency is falling in around him. What's he to do if he can't get his war going? He's screwed and he knows it. According to International Law we can attack Iraq only if the UN approves (not likely) or if we're defending ourselves from attack or we've been attacked. Is there anyone stupid enough to think Iraq is capable of attacking the US?

Hello,

I am quite inspired by the work you have done compiling the wrongdoings of the dictator in chief we have here in the United States. I have long believed that the Supreme Court selected him due to the make up of the court due to Daddy Bush.

I am beginning to fear writing such things since I have some ‘inside' knowledge of the technologies ‘Big Brother' is developing. A friend of mine works for DARPA who is working on TIA systems. Soon we will not be able to use the internet as we are doing now. We will be like China {where I may end up working soon}. It is a shame, and something we should remember and tell our children about... The great dream of freedom of information, freedom of thought, freedom of speech... All those things will be but a memory.

I don't really think there is a damn thing we can do about it at this point. I am a victim of 9/11. My brother worked for Cantor Fitzgerald on the 105th floor of tower 1. He was killed in a senseless act of terrorism, and the country was plunged into a hellish nightmare, a ghost of it's former greatness. The war in Afghanistan was a JOKE. We didn't accomplish anything, but possibly chasing the Taliban {not the real enemy anyway} back into the hills. We killed many innocent people, and we are boasting about how impressive our advanced bombs are. We are real losers in this case, pretending to be victors.

What Bush has done to the economy, to the environment, to the balance of class power, etc. is a disgrace. I am baffled how the idiot was able to win {Oh yeah, he didn't win...}. I am angry, disenfranchised, and torn.... I am very much against the Iraq war... I am still asking why we need to attack Iraq if the purpose is WMD when we know that Korea already has them. There is no logic here.

So besides complaining, what can we do… I will write my representative, and I live in California which still is mostly Democratic and liberal, but I seriously doubt anything will happen.

We must get used to it... The CONSTITUTION is dead... It's been dead for a while Republicans have battered it and kicked it... They have not had any respect for it. I knew things were turning dark when he mysteriously was selected by the courts. They didn't want a recount because they knew that Gore would win. Why else? Then the repealing of laws passed to protect workers, the push to drill Alaska {and continue polluting the environment}, the pullout from Kyoto, the relaxing of emission standards, the pandering to big business like Enron...

Here is a conspiracy theory of my own. I believe that the president and Enron head Ken Lay were plotting to destroy Californias booming internet business in the mid to late 2000's. Enron was in still secret meetings with the Bush administration working on so-called "National Energy Policy." Meanwhile here in CA, Enron was screwing the state by manipulating prices in the market, making California pay as much as 800% it was paying before. California is still messed up due to the deals Gov Davis needed to make to nail prices down. After the fact we find that collusion between several energy suppliers caused immense damage to the CA economy. I think the Bushes wanted to destroy Silicon Valley because only 1 in 6 people in Silicon Valley voted republican. He only visited that important valley once during his campaign. We wonder why so many companies when bust, when they were paying through the nose for energy. I sat through three rotating outages wondering why... They claimed that there was not enough generating facility, but now we find out that several plants were taken off-line to cause the demand to shoot up... Very dastardly; just like the republicans.

When that was happening, our elected representatives went to DC to ask the president for some assistance. What the president said basically was "The free market is more important than the people, you will pay what they ask." We find out now that it wasn't ‘really' a free market economy if the energy suppliers are colluding to defraud.

I'm sure Bush is using his cronies to screw other businesses to… His oil cronies are the ones who are getting the payback.

Do you think we will get rid of the bastard? I actually drove with a poster which read "GW BUSH SUCKS, Please help get rid of the bastard!" on the back of my car for the 1st four months of the idiots presidency. I really was hoping people would see the man for what he is… Then 9/11 happened and suddenly people liked him. I don't know what he did, because whatever it was it didn't work on me. I still see his ugly smirking face, his clueless smile, his unthought out answers, and his evil nature. He talks about good and evil like he thinks he is Solomon, but he is really Howdy Doody.

It makes me sick that my brothers death brought this monster to power. I watched the peace protests and thought that things might change. I am a bit upset at the amount of "Pro-Palestinian" sentiment is associated with this. I myself support our policy toward Israel, and being an American Jew I believe that the Palestinians need to get terrorism under control before they can come to the table to talk about the Palestinian state. I support the establishment of the Palestinian state but not at the expense of Israeli lives.

Keep up the heat,

Thanks,

Michael
Sr. Software Engineer