Scribes Unlimited

Well, why not? We're a two-person crew of writers, researchers, editors, online publishers, mortgage and investment counselors. Not bad for just two people, hmmm? These are our ramblings and we hope you find them relatively more exciting than our work. No, we're kidding, we LOVE the work! (But we do miss the steady paychecks *wistful sighs* ) Anyway, enjoy and look us up sometime at http://www.scribesunlimited.com

Name:
Location: Cleveland Heights, Ohio, United States

Saturday, March 08, 2008

Stop it Hillary

Stop it Hillary!

We are really disappointed at the way Senator Clinton has decided to use the Republican campaigners rule book to deal with her rival Senator Obama. We were excited that Senators Clinton and Obama were running for office. We knew it was a history making situation and we knew it was time – time for an African-American or a woman to be President. It is a heady thought and a welcome one. However this past week has really upset us.

Senator Clinton is behaving like any other old school candidate – she is swift boating a member of her own party in her aggressive, nasty “I deserve to be president – see what Bill did to me” style and it sickens us. We have had too many years of that sort of campaign and administration. W is a disaster and he is a mean petty little man who has limited understanding and no vision. He has run this country on fear and terror for so long, that we need a break. Yes it is a dangerous world out there – yes there are people trying to get us – yes there are people whose envy of us have caused them to hate us. We know, we understand, we GET IT.

Guess what? THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PEOPLE WHO HATE US AND WANT TO GET US. THE WORLD HAS ALWAYS BEEN DANGEROUS and we just have to realize that and get on with our lives. And that means – bring our vibrant youth back from a country we should have never invaded, focus our attention on Al Qaeda and get that job done, and most of all restore America’s hope and never ending optimism. Bush has destroyed that, along with everything else he has ever touched.

We need VISION, inspiration and belief – not the narrow, bigoted right wing fundamentalist belief’s that typify ultra conservative Christians, Muslims and others - to bring us together and work through our problems. We need Republicans to stop terrorizing us, and Hillary to stop undermining her own rival. We are better than that – and we thought that she was better than that too.

In 2000, after watching Bush cheat his way to the White House because the Democrats couldn’t get their act together and win decisively in any state, and Ralph “I don’t care I am a spoiler” Nader siphoned votes away, we heard someone say “So how bad could this guy be?’ and we all nodded in agreement. Well folks, we know how bad it can be – and with McCain, it will be another four years of the same or worse. Three terms of Bush is three terms too many.

So stop it Hillary! Stop trying to win at all costs – at the cost of the American people. Stop taking the low road and proving that you are the witch the Republicans are always saying you are. Take the high road – for the sake of this country. So what if you aren’t President. So what if you have to admit that you have no vision, no true hope for us. DON”T become a Republican shill, so that your win at all costs, costs the Democrats the election and you become responsible for destroying America. The downward spiral of America began with Ronald Reagan and your husband’s antics didn’t help stem it swirling down, please don’t be the person to put the plug in the drain after we are washed away in a stream of innuendo and John McCain.

Monday, December 31, 2007

New York Times: Looking at America

Editorial
Looking at America
Published: December 31, 2007 – The New York Times
There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.
It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.
The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.
Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.
In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.
We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.
Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.
The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.
Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.
In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.
The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.
These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.
We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Thursday, December 13, 2007

The Abominable No-Man and Mr. 9/11

The Abominable No-Man and Mr. 9/11
-----------

Our good president has been making his political rounds with pronounced zest in what appears to be a valiant effort to prove he is still relevant. One day he is Bush the Adventurer, the man who blundered into Iraq -- talking up the evils of Iran and the possibility of World War III. The next day he is Bush the Abominable No-Man, keeping health care out of the greedy hands of poor kids.

These are but two of the horrifying personas of this president. There is also the mortifying "I can’t believe he’s my president" persona. This president is the backslapper, the one who calls himself "the decider", the fellow who drops his dog on its head. He’s the one who opened the conference of the 21-nation Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) by thanking Australian prime minister John Howard "for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit" -- OPEC being the cartel of mostly Middle Eastern oil producers. This president then thanked Howard for the presence of his "Austrian" troops in Iraq and marched confidently offstage -- in the wrong direction.

A few weeks later the same president attended an elementary school in New York in order to crow about higher national test scores. "Childrens do learn!" he proclaimed, creating a Norm Crosby-ish bookend for his infamous "Is our children learning?" anguish of a few years ago.

I wouldn’t want to draw conclusions as to the cause of this recent spate of malapropisms, but a new book by former British foreign secretary Lord Owen may supply a clue. In 'The Hubris Syndrome: Bush, Blair, and the Intoxication of Power', Owen recalls the time in 2002 when the commander in chief collapsed while sitting on a sofa watching a football game. (Official cause: he’d choked on a pretzel.) The presidential head hit a table on the way to the floor, he suffered an abrasion on the left side of his face and a blood sample was rushed to Johns Hopkins, in Baltimore. Owen says he was told by a British doctor who had visited Johns Hopkins that lab technicians there found that the blood contained significant amounts of alcohol -- this in the body of a man who claims he hasn’t had a drop in more than 20 years.

The president stayed on message in Washington last November when he gave Harper Lee, author of "To Kill a Mockingbird", the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award. First he quoted an early review of the book: "A hundred pounds of sermons on tolerance, or an equal measure of invective deploring the lack of it, will weigh far less in the scale of enlightenment than a mere 18 ounces of a new fiction bearing the title "To Kill a Mockingbird."

Beautiful words. Stirring.

Then Bush went on to say, in his own words, "We’re moved by the story of a man falsely accused -- with old prejudice massed against him, and an old sense of honor that rises to his defense."

Am I the only one who found these sentiments an outrage, inasmuch as they came from the mouth of a man who has endorsed acts of extraordinary rendition and torture often based on slim evidence and racial profiling? I can only imagine what was going through Harper Lee’s mind at the time.

With regard to the president’s favorite pastime -- namely, wondering what his place in history will be -- historians should heed the counsel of fans of our national pastime, who are uniquely equipped to assess the commander in chief’s judgment and fore sight. Back in the mid-90s, professional baseball owners were deciding whether to enact a wild-card rule, which would allow a second-place team in each league the chance to get into the playoffs. When the 28 owners came to decide on the new rule, only one voted against it -- only one -- and that was our very own president, then the managing general partner of the Texas Rangers.

Since then, nearly a third of World Series champions have been wild-card teams, and the rule change is credited with helping baseball regain its standing following the brutal seven-month players’ strike that began in 1994. "History will prove me right," Bush bellowed at the time of the vote. "This is an exercise in folly."

One of the people who think they can do a better job than the president let me correct that: one of the people who *think* they can do a better job than the president, and are actively chasing the position is New York’s own banty visionary Rudolph Giuliani, Mr. 9/11 himself. I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: one second before that first plane flew into the World Trade Center tower, Giuliani was one of the most disliked mayors in New York history. Grasping, petty, and vengeful, he was the sort of politician who runs for higher office not so much because he can, then reward those who helped him along, but because he can then punish those who didn’t.

It could reasonably be said that Giuliani shone on 9/11 and during its aftermath. And he’s been shining that 9/11 badge ever since. Indeed, with the possible exception of Osama bin Laden, nobody has cashed in more on that fateful day. As Michael Shnayerson illustrates so clearly in "A Tale of Two Giulianis", his unflinching look at the former mayor’s professional dealings, the post-9/l1 Giuliani has gone into business with a number of companies of less than stellar reputation. This is all legal, if a bit tawdry, for a former mayor. But it’s not really what you go looking for in a future head of state.

-GRAYDON CARTER -- Vanity Fair Editor

Sunday, September 16, 2007

Vanity Fair -- Inside Bush's Bunker

For any second-term president—as the pressure grows to cement his
legacy, and with many of his best aides gone—the physical bunker of an electronically
sealed, sniper-patrolled White House, which restricts his access to old friends
and new ideas, can lead to psychological isolation. Talking to administration insiders, TODD S. PURDUM learns why George W. Bush's disconnect is even more
extreme, from the "Churchillian riff" he goes into when Iraq is discussed to his eerie optimism, to his increasing reliance on a dwindling band of diehards.

-----------

Sometime early on the morning of January 20, 2009, if recent history is a reliable guide, George W. Bush will sit down at the carved oak desk in the Oval Office and compose a note wishing his successor Godspeed. The desk is made from timbers of H.M.S. Resolute, a British bark that was abandoned to the ice but later salvaged by an American whaling vessel and presented to Queen Victoria in 1856 as a token of friendship. When the ship was finally decommissioned, the Queen sent a desk made from its best wood to President Rutherford B. Hayes. Since then almost every president has used the desk in one way or another. John F. Kennedy Jr. played behind the hinged door in its front, which Franklin D. Roosevelt installed to hide his leg braces and wheelchair.

In the last winter light of his tenure, what could this president, the captain of a ship that even many of his once loyal crew think of as the U.S.S. Delusional, possibly have to say to the man or woman who takes his place? Ronald Reagan left the first President Bush a note with the exhortation "Don't let the turkeys get you down!" The elder Bush left Bill Clinton a note promising that he would be "rooting" for him. Clinton has never revealed what he wrote to the second President Bush, but it seems safe to say that, in 2001, neither of them could have envisioned just what a failed presidency the 43rd president's would turn out to be, dragged down by war, incompetence, and corruption. The man buried in Grant's tomb may soon move up a rung.

In those moments when Bush's aides seek to show that their president is more conscientious, more reflective —in a word, deeper— than he tends to appear, they release samples of his thinking, in his own hand. ("Let freedom reign!" was his jotted response to word from Condoleezza Rice that the United States had returned sovereignty to the first of several ineffectual governments in Iraq.) But far from demonstrating Bush's depth, such exercises seem only to prove that the president, like the rest of us, has an opposable thumb. If he keeps a diary of his innermost thoughts, as even Ronald Reagan did, no one has seen it. If Bush harbors doubts about the wisdom of his course he has not been known to confide them — he is in fact famous for being unable to admit, or even to remember, a mistake. Does he have regrets? Too few to mention: he's done it his way.

By its nature, the presidency is a lonely job. Through personality, predilection, and sheer force of will, Bush has made his presidency far lonelier than most. According to Bob Woodward, Bush told a group of Republican lawmakers in late 2005 that he would not withdraw from Iraq even if his wife, Laura, and his dog, Barney, were the only ones still supporting him. He seems determined, these days, to prove the point.

Now, with not quite a year and a half left before Bush leaves office, we have already arrived at the beleaguered endgame of his presidency. From deep inside the fortified precincts of the White House, the president projects a preternatural calm. He gives orders to nonexistent armies, which his remaining lieutenants gamely transmit: "Reform immigration!" "Overhaul the tax code!" "Privatize Social Security!" Outside the bunker, in the country that his administration now refers to as "the homeland," there is chaos and confusion. The Democrats bridged the Potomac after winning the elections last fall, and the Blue Army has now overrun most of political Washington. Its flag flies above the Capitol. More and more of the president's subordinates have been captured and interrogated, most notably the attorney general, Alberto Gonzales. Others, such as Matthew Dowd, the president's former chief campaign strategist, have managed to make good their escape — Dowd by parachuting onto the front page of the enemy New York Times with a detailed denunciation of Bush's policies. Independent powers that would sue for peace — the Baker-Hamilton Commission, for example — have been banished. Some loyalists, including presidential counselor Dan Bartlett, have simply fled to the safety of the private sector. For one reason or another, most of the commander in chief's senior advisers are now gone, replaced by callow upstarts and last-chance opportunists. The two most powerful advisers have been the president's second-in-command and his propaganda minister — his vice president and his political strategist — who had been at his side from the beginning and have remained close and trusted, despite the catastrophes they helped to engineer. Dick Cheney will haunt the bunker till the end, but the political strategist, Karl Rove, has quietly slipped away.

The leader himself — with his lady and his loyal dog — soldiers on, in an atmosphere of disconnection and illusion. Lurid tabloid tales may hint at binge drinking and marital estrangement, although visitors report uniformly, and much to their surprise, that the president seems optimistic, unbowed, chipper, his gaze bright and steadfast. The tide is about to turn! We will prevail! But it is a hermetic and solitary existence. In the first six months of this year, the president dined outside the White House for purely personal social reasons on precisely three evenings, all in the same small swath of Northwest Washington, in the homes of old friends and aides.

So it's easy enough to imagine that Bush's frame of mind, on the morning of his successor's inauguration, will be one of isolation. As the clock winds down, with his fate inescapable, he may wander one last time through the sprawling White House complex, with its bulletproof-glass windows, its bombproof bunker, its tamperproof water supply. His whereabouts will be tracked on a small computer monitor, known as the Locator Box, in the office of his chief of staff. When he leaves the Oval Office to greet the new president in the White House residence, walking along the outdoor colonnade that leads from the West Wing, he will pass a small, lacquered wooden sign on a stand. It serves as a warning to anyone who seeks to enter his locked-down mind, or the closed world in which he lives. In gilt lettering the sign reads, NO TOURS BEYOND THIS POINT.

It isn't just a metaphor, this image of the president in a bunker. It is the fate of every president to some degree — and of this one more than any since Richard Nixon in his last days. Many factors combine to create a bunker psychology. The first, common to all modern presidencies, is the physical structure of the White House itself: appearances to the contrary, it literally is a bunker, and like any building it shapes its occupants. Another factor, again common to all presidencies, is the relentless working of time — particularly in a second term — as the buildup of problems and the departure of trusted aides create an atmosphere of vulnerability and suspicion. A third factor is the character of the man in the Oval Office. Some, like Ronald Reagan, Gerald Ford, and Bill Clinton, were temperamentally incapable of long-term bunker life. For others, like Nixon, the bunker was in some strange way the ecological niche they were born to fill. What about the current occupant? Over the past few months, I have spoken with dozens of current and former White House officials about George W. Bush and his presidency: for obvious reasons, most of them requested anonymity. They paint a picture of a president whose physical circumstances reinforce his psychological ones, and whose "My Way or the Highway" personality ultimately means that he travels alone.

Let's begin with the White House itself. A central truth about the presidential complex, easy to overlook, is that it is above all a military installation — a bristling fortress with a single first-class compartment at its heart. The president occupies a bunker from the moment he takes office. He must fight strenuously to escape it, and the tendency of the bunker is always to pull him back. Harry Truman, to whom Bush has lately taken to comparing himself, referred to the president's mansion on one occasion as a "great white sepulcher." On another he called it "a hell of a place to be alone." But Truman usually wasn't alone there. He rose regularly from his sepulcher and made a point of breaking out of his private hell.

Doing so has gotten harder. The street approach to the White House complex is cordoned off for a block in every direction, defended by rows of heavy iron bollards and retractable metal barriers implanted in the roadway. The core 18-acre White House zone is sealed by a high iron fence and a dense network of electronic sensors and alarms. Snipers patrol the White House roof. Anti-aircraft systems crown the neighboring buildings. A military presence is everywhere. Whenever the president is at work in the Oval Office, a brace of Marine guards in full-dress uniform stand at fixed posts under the West Wing portico; when he leaves, they retreat to a holding area.

The largest single component of the White House operation, in terms of personnel and budget, is also the least known: the White House Military Office. Even before the 9/11 attacks, the Military Office accounted for 2,200 of the 5,900 workers on the extended White House staff. The Military Office oversees food service in the West Wing mess and on Air Force One, for which it sends out anonymous shoppers to local grocery stores. It provides the staff of mostly Filipino stewards who function as the president's valets. The Military Office oversees the White House Communications Agency, once a branch of the Army Signal Corps, and it coordinates all presidential transportation. Every motorcade contains a wagonload of black-clad, heavily armed Secret Service agents, known as the CAT (for "counter-assault team"), and two identical, armored black Cadillac limousines. One of them carries the president; the other is a decoy that carries the president's doctor and his personal aide and is known as 'The toast car" (as in what it would be if the worst ever happened).
This is the part of the military infrastructure that the public sometimes sees. But down a stairwell in the East Wing, near the family movie theater and the visitors' office, and past the elaborate water-filtration system that purifies every drop flowing toward White House taps and tubs, is a parallel universe that no outsider so much as glimpsed until a few years ago, when several photographs were released of Vice President Dick Cheney at work there right after the World Trade Center fell. This is the Presidential Emergency Operations Center. or PEOC — the president's secure, bombproof underground redoubt. The atmosphere is kept sanitized by air locks and an independent ventilation system. Generators are on standby to provide backup electricity. Emergency escape routes lead underground from the bunker to points unknown. Besides meeting rooms, there are spartan, dormitory-style accommodations for the president, his top aides, and his family. It is here that the president's on-duty military aide — the officer who carries the "football," the briefcase containing authorization codes for launching nuclear weapons - sleeps during his 24-hour shift.

The effect on the mind of all this security — built up a brick at a time from the Cold War through the Kennedy assassination to the attempt on Ronald Reagan's life and the rise of global terrorism — cannot be overstated. "It doesn't set out to be so isolating," one former presidential aide told me. "But when you're protected by a secure package, and all
instruments and institutions and functions grow up around you, it's kind of inevitable." On his way to work, Bill Clinton, according to one of his former personal assistants, would occasionally drop by the tourist line downstairs, just for a brief infusion of the outside world — something no longer allowed the president in a post-9/II environment.

The physical isolation of the president, any president, in the White House is extreme — palpable and oppressive even on the happiest day, in the most successful administration, during the best of times. The psychological isolation weighs more heavily still, and never more so than when a president is on the ropes. Matthew Dowd told me that he now hardly recognizes the once gregarious politician he first came to know in Texas, when Bush was governor. He said he is not sure how much of the change in the current White House atmosphere can be ascribed to Bush's personality and how much to the restrictive nature of the place, but he says, "Ultimately it rests with the president."

"It's not only the White House, and how a White House operates," Dowd adds, "but I think when you get beleaguered and you feel like you're under fire, then everybody who's not agreeing with you, or not on the program, is part of the problem."

The entire White House machine is designed to preserve, protect, and defend a president's distance from friends and enemies alike. Just knowing that plainclothes guards lurk everywhere, even if unseen and sworn to secrecy, is guaranteed to disturb the coolest head in unpredictable ways. (One of the Kennedy family's favorite Broadway songs was the First Daughter's plaintive lament from Irving Berlin's 'Mr. President', "The Secret Service Makes Me Nervous.") Until Bill Clinton demanded a change, in 1993, the president's telephones did not even have direct-dial buttons to make outside calls. All calls to and from the president had to be routed to the switchboard, and through a communications-staff person with a designation out of a Cold War novel: Operator 1. Only a few of the president's closest friends and family members know the direct-dial numbers that will reach his office or the residence, and only a few know the private Zip Code that, in theory, makes it possible for mail to reach the president directly (though even then it must first be subjected to tests for anthrax and who knows what other threats). The current president himself pointed out, on taking office, that he would have to give up the pleasure of e-mailing with family and friends, because their idlest musings would become presidential documents, subject to scrutiny and review. (Some of Bush's closest aides. including Karl Rove, did an end run
around that problem by conducting White House business on Republican National Committee e-mail accounts, which are not subject to the same recordkeeping requirements.)

Imagine, for a moment, that one of George W. Bush's oldest friends - say, his Yale classmate Roland Betts — wants to reach him. How does he go about it? Here is roughly what might happen: Betts's name is on a short list of known presidential friends. Betts may even know the direct number of the Oval Office suite, where he might get the president's personal secretary, or the director of Oval Office operations, on the phone. She in turn might ask the advice of the president's personal aide, known in Clinton White House parlance as "the butt boy". If the president is not doing anything in particular, and the two aides agree that he might like to talk to his old friend, the call might be put through. Or they might take a number and arrange a call¬back, perhaps from the president's limousine on his way to a public appearance. Getting in touch is almost never a one-step process.

Now imagine that the mayor of a big American city — New Orleans, for instance — is trying to reach the president. Let's say the mayor is upset and, in a break with protocol, somehow manages to be connected to the Oval Office suite. What would happen next? First, his call would be routed to the office of Intergovernmental Affairs, the unit in the West Wing that handles presidential relations with states and municipalities. With luck, the mayor may actually know someone in that office. Maybe he blows his top and talks his way into being connected with one of the deputy chiefs of staff. Maybe, eventually, he makes it to the chief of staff himself (after asking a friendly senator or G.O.P. fat cat to intercede). And maybe then, just maybe, the chief of staff calls the president's office. (The chief of staff is one of the tiny handful of people whose calls are always put through.) And maybe, if all goes well, the chief of staff suggests that the president call the mayor back. And if all continues to go well, after two or three missed attempts they connect, and the president says he'll see what he can do about whatever it is the mayor wants. And then the process starts all over again.

For the president — any president — to receive reliable, unvarnished, outside information about what's really going on in the world can require an enormous personal effort. Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush sent out handwritten notes by the thousands to keep lines open to friends and acquaintances, and to remind themselves of the utter vastness of life outside. Bill Clinton made it his business to telephone old pals and fellow pals, often late at night, to test his assumptions, ask for advice, get a reality check. He brought his friend the historian Taylor Branch to the White House for freewheeling conversations on nearly 80 occasions. Chilton also read voraciously, including his own press clippings, which sometimes enraged him. Ronald Reagan's newly released diaries suggest that he watched "Meet the Press" and "60 Minutes" more faithfully each Sunday than he went to church; more than once, while watching Jerry Lewis's annual Labor Day telethon for muscular dystrophy, he picked up the phone, asked to be connected to the number on the screen, and had trouble persuading stunned operators that it was indeed the president trying to make a pledge.

Bush's aides maintain that he keeps up with a network of friends around the country, and often frustrates White House operators by picking up the phone to dial directly. But Bush has never made a public point of demonstrating that he cares about openness or is determined to stay in touch. To the contrary, even in small, symbolic ways he has erected barriers. The Bush administration appears to be the first in history to have posted a formal dress code for anyone wanting to set foot in the West Wing: no jeans. sneakers, shorts, miniskirts, T-shirts, tank tops, or flip-flops. More seriously, the administration has placed strict new limits on access to presidential papers, including its own. The president himself, meanwhile, has famously insisted that he ignores most newspapers and television news programs, preferring to get his information from the White House's own "objective sources," meaning the people around him. Bush also insists that he ignores polls, which Dowd his former pollster, says is a grave mistake. "How do you, when you're sitting in a very tight, circled place, where you go from a black limousine to a helicopter to a big airplane — how do you keep in touch with what people think? One of the ways to tell what people think is, basically, by polls. For all that we can fault Clinton — and I never voted for the guy — at least he had a sense, and one of his barometers was where the American people were."

It's hard to imagine that Bush doesn't at least glance at the carefully collated daily White House news summary, a digest of the day's top stories and editorial comment stapled together in a fat, legal-size pile. At a minimum, he reads enough of it to have recommended last July that his staff check out an upbeat assessment of the Iraq war in The Washington Post's Outlook section written by William Kristol, one of the war's intellectual cheerleaders. This, to be sure, is the kind of news that Bush wants to hear. When the news is something else, he may simply choose not to hear it. According to the reporter Ron Suskind, in August of 2001 a C.I.A. analyst was sent to the Bush ranch, in Texas, to brief the president about indications of an imminent threat from al-Qaeda. The president heard him out and then sent him packing with the words "All right, you've covered your ass, now."

The Bush White House has its own cable-television system, with a custom lineup of channels (Homeland Box Office, it might be called). When he travels out of town, Vice President Cheney demands, according to written instructions that recently became public, that the television sets in his hotel suite be turned on to the right-wing Fox News before he arrives. The TVs in the Bush presidential orbit are so routinely fixed on Fox that when the president gave Nancy Reagan the use of his official 747 for her husband's funeral, three years ago, she had to ask the stewards to change the channel, noting pointedly that her son Ron was affiliated with MSNBC. During the 2004 re-election campaign, presidential advance teams expelled from public events anyone they suspected might not quietly toe the party line. Since then, Bush has rarely appeared before any group, big or small, whose loyalties and questions were not pre-screened and pre-approved. In the course of a Bush trip to Rhode Island in June, Jarred Holbrook, a correspondent for WPRI-TV, in Providence, twice dared to call out "Mr. President!" at an airport photo op where no one had told him that questions were off limits. Holbrook, a former Marine originally from Texas, told me he had merely intended to ask how Bush was enjoying his first visit to Rhode Island as president. A member of the White House entourage with an earpiece and security pin immediately yanked Holbrook's press credential off his belt, and disappeared with it into Air Force One. In the end, insularity becomes inertial, feeding on itself to create ever more isolation.

The isolating nature of the White House is at its most extreme in a second term. Of all the presidents lucky enough, or cursed enough, to win a second term, probably none would claim that the second time around was better. Sometimes the falloff has been pronounced. Woodrow Wilson won re-election in 1916 on the platform that "he kept us out of war," but the United States entered World War I anyway, and Wilson left office humiliated by the failure of America to join the League of Nations and brutally crippled by a stroke. Dwight D. Eisenhower's first-term achievement in ending the Korean War and presiding over a booming consumer economy faded in anxiety about Sputnik abroad, civil rights at home, and his own multiplying medical problems. Richard Nixon's travails with Watergate speak for themselves, as do Ronald Reagan's with the Iran-contra scandal and Bill Clinton's with the Lewinsky affair and impeachment.

By any measure, the failure of George Bush's second term has been spectacular. Winning re¬election in 2004, he bragged in a post-victory news conference that he had accumulated a surpassing quantity of political capital and now intended to spend it. The political capital has been squandered. Bush's grand plan to overhaul Social Security by creating private investment accounts never got off the ground. His effort to reform immigration law resulted in bitter denunciations by conservatives in his own party and a humiliating defeat in Congress. His pathetic response to Hurricane Katrina exploded any claim he might make, as the first president in history with a business degree, to managerial competence. Ever since the Democrats took control of Congress in the midterm elections, the administration has faced slow death by subpoena on a dozen fronts. Hanging over everything has been the debacle of Iraq, a failure acknowledged everywhere in Washington except the Oval Office. The recognition of failure is so pervasive that when the president went looking for a new "czar" to oversee the war effort, he ended up with a man, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, who had actually opposed the president's policy of "surging" more American troops into Baghdad.
The paradox of second terms — of second terms in general, and of this one most acutely — is that just when a president most needs an A Team of trusted, experienced aides around him, willing to puncture wishful thinking, he is all too apt to he surrounded by an F Troop of third - and fourth - tier appointees who have been brought in as neophytes or who had simply hung around long enough to move up the ladder.

Bush's first White House domestic-policy adviser was the capable Margaret Spellings. That Job was later given to Claude Allen, who resigned in the shadow of criminal charges involving a department-store refund scam, and it is now held by Karl Zinsmeister, a stern but erratic ideologue imported from the world of right-wing think tanks. If Bush's first-term surgeon general, Dr. Richard Carmona, did not inspire confidence with his recent admission that administration officials muzzled him on hot-button issues like the morning-after pill, then what is the country to make of Bush's current nominee for the job, Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., who helped found a church that ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian? How about Michael Baroody, senior lobbyist at the National Association of Manufacturers, who was forced to withdraw as Bush's nominee to head the Consumer Product Safety Commission last spring after it came out that the association was preparing to give him a $150,000 send-off payment? (As C.P.S.C. director, he would be regulating products made by its members.) Or Henrietta Holsman Fore, nominated by Bush to replace Randall Tobias, deputy secretary of state for foreign assistance, after Tobias was forced to resign in an escort scandal? It turned out that Fore once told a college audience that she had tried to retain black employees when she was president of a small wire-products company near Los Angeles but that they preferred selling drugs; that Hispanics were lazy; and that Asians, while productive, favored professional or management jobs. (Her nomination is pending in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.) You can multiply such examples by several score. These may not be officials at the apex of power, but the functioning of any presidency depends on people at this level, and the steady degradation of their ranks is corrostve.

The desertions from Bush's innermost circle have been, if anything, more pronounced. By the end of Franklin D. Roosevelt's tenure in the White House, some loyalists lamented that the aides most able to save him from trouble, or at least from himself — people such as his political adviser, Louis Howe: his secretary, Missy LeHand; and his all-purpose confidant, Harry Hopkins — were all gone from the scene. The same is true for Bush: absent now are most of the aides who knew him best, served him longest, and could give it to him straightest — people such as his old friend and former commerce secretary, Don Evans; his counselor Karen Hughes; and his longest-serving aide, Dan Bartlett. Unlike his father, who had in men such as James Baker and Brent Scowcroft genuine peers whose unvarnished advice he trusted totally, George W. Bush has never had advisers whom he regarded as true equals, so the loss of those few who came close is a calamity.

By all accounts Bush's chief of staff, Joshua Bolten, who took the job last year and freshened up the White House operation with a new press secretary and other changes, is a skilled Washington player, unafraid to give Bush bad news or challenge prevailing thinking. But as a range of Republican insiders told me, Bolten was no match for Karl Rove. Variously nick¬named "Boy Genius" and "Turd Blossom" by Bush, Rove remained the president's chief political strategist and the dominant internal White House force (read: schoolyard bully), despite having had his wings clipped and his policy portfolio lightened by Bolten and despite having seen his hopes for a permanent Republican majority repudiated last fall. Rove was able to interpret Bush's moods and thinking better than anyone, which gave him extraordinary power. But his effectiveness was ultimately diminished by the cloud of controversy that surrounded him, and one White House veteran told me that Republican candidates around the country had begun to shun his advice. To the surprise of many, Rove announced his resignation in August, his voice cracking in an emotional news conference with Bush. The blossom may be off the turd, but the bunker Rove helped Bush build remains very much in place.

Karen Hughes, one of the most prominent among the former Bush aides, and well known for being an effective counterforce to Rove's partisan machismo, was the first to leave the White House inner circle (in 2002, to spend more time with her family), though she remained plugged in enough to be the one to tell Bush that, whatever he thought, he did look defensive and impatient in his first 2004 debate against John Kerry. Matthew Dowd not only left the fold but went above it: in a front-page interview with The New York Times last spring, Dowd detailed chapter and verse of his disappointment with the president's policies. Nicolle Devenish Wallace, a canny, candid communications aide who once worked for Jeb Bush, was a mainstay of the re-election campaign and actually seemed to enjoy the company of journalists: she left the White House last year out of frustration with Rove's iron rule, his refusal to brook criticism, and his tendency to mock and humiliate anybody who disagreed with him.

Even more striking was the departure of counselor Dan Bartlett, the man sometimes described as the son Bush never had. Though Bartlett, who had worked for Bush since 1993, always kept a discreet and loyally low profile, he was understood to have been willing to tell the president unpleasant truths. It was Bartlett who assembled a compilation reel of post-Katrina news coverage in a last-ditch effort to make Bush understand what everyone else in America knew: that the president had a crisis on his hands. Bartlett announced his resignation in June, on his 36th birthday, looking at least half again that age, and told reporters that the birth of his third son, in January, meant it was past time for a change. Bush issued a statement praising Bartlett as a "true counselor." But there was, all the same, something grudging in Bush's body language and a poignant trace of abandonment in Bartlett's departure, which came a full year after Bolten had asked senior aides either to leave immediately or pledge to stay the remainder of Bush's term.

So most of the grown-ups are gone. In the end, Bush is left tethered to the most bunkered subordinate of all, Dick Cheney, who, according to The WashThgton Post, squirrels
away even the most routine office documents in "man-sized Mosler safes" and who reaches down into the tiniest capillaries of the federal bureaucracy to assert his will. Bush and Cheney have always presented Cheney's lack of presidential ambition as an asset, one that has allowed Cheney to serve the president with unquestioned loyalty and singular effectiveness. The truth is precisely the opposite. As the 2008 election approaches, it is obvious that Cheney's willful political tone-deafness has become one of Bush's biggest liabilities. A vice president with his eye on the prize would operate with more astuteness and delicacy, if only for the sake of his own obectives. And a president determined to ensure his vice president's prospects could never afford to be as stubborn, as seemingly oblivious to the physics of electoral reality, as Bush has chosen to be. Despite reports of supposedly diminished influence, and of occasional losses to Defense and State on policy questions, Cheney remains the most powerful vice president in history - all the more powerful for the total privacy of his relationship with the president. One Bush-administration veteran had this to say by way of summary: "The guy scares the crap out of me."

At a formal White House dinner last spring, President Bush made friendly small talk about one of the White House's latest technological marvels: the secure digital video¬conferencing system, through which Bush can consult with far-flung aides or with world leaders such as Iraqi prime minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki at any hour of the day or night. The picture and sound quality are so lifelike, Bush told those around him, "I can see Maliki quake when I chew him out!"

The reality of Bush's isolation in the bunker is that the reverse happens to him only rarely. Communication is a one-way street; Bush himself never gets a talking-to. "When people go in to see him now to discuss Iraq," a long¬time Washington Republican who served both Ford and Reagan told me, "he has this kind of Churchillian riff that he goes into. But he doesn't really talk about it. He will receive people. But that doesn't mean he hears people."

When he was Ronald Reagan's White House political director, Ed Rollins used to arrange occasional, informal focus groups with ordinary people — truckdrivers, nurses — whose anecdotal histories were Reagan's lifeblood. Rollins sees no equivalent effort in Bush's White House. In fact, he told me, he has heard from well-known people who were brought to the White House to present their views on policy questions and instead got a piece of Bush's mind. One businessman from New York was asked to the White House to offer his views on stem-cell research — "a major C.E.O., a hospital board chairman." Rollins recalls. The man told Rollins that, after he spoke up, Bush "put his finger in my chest" in angry disagreement.

One longtime former Republican official, who held senior posts in both the first and second Bush administrations, was bluntest of all. "My question is," this former official told me, "does he expose himself to people who respectfully disagree, or thoughtfully disagree, or may have a legitimate suggestion? Not a lot, no. I think some of us are just born with a really, really active curiosity. If you're on a farm, you ask, 'How does this irrigation system work?' I think he has a very narrow curiosity. He's polite. He was raised to be polite. But you just never sense a deep curiosity. His interests are exercise and chopping wood."

At the height of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln sought convivial company wherever he could find it. A couple of nights a week he might head to the home of his sophisticated secretary of state, William H. Seward, for talk, companionship, a change of scene. As noted, in the first six months of this year, excluding the obligatory press dinners (which he only suffers) and foreign-summit dinners (ditto), Bush left the White House to socialize only three times. According to the CBS correspondent Mark Knoller, who keeps a fastidious record of such things, Bush went out for an early Sunday-night dinner in March at the home of Karl Rove; in June. he dined at the homes of Clay Johnson, an old Yale friend who is now the deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget, and of James Langdon Jr., a lawyer and major Bush fund-raiser who headed the president's foreign-intelligence advisory board. In all three instances Bush was back at the White House by around his usual bedtime of 9:30 P.M.

By comparison, Laura Bush is a good deal more gregarious, dining out with girlfriends, attending plays and concerts at the Kennedy Center, making the occasional getaway to New York. But she keeps her own counsel, and whatever she does — or doesn't — tell her husband remains almost entirely a matter of conjecture. On the day after last fall's Republican midterm-election defeat, while the president was holding a glum news conference at the White House, Laura Bush was celebrating her 60th birthday with 25 friends at a lunch at the elegant Inn at Little Washington, in the Virginia countryside.

"One of the things that has been a failure of this presidency is a lack of a 'social presi¬dency,'" Matthew Dowd says. "To me, it's one of the greatest advantages a president can have, building relationships with the opposite party, not at the time when you need their votes but in the course of everyday life, inviting people out to have dinner at Camp David, having them over to the White House. There's basically been none of that. We wear it as a badge of honor that we don't have state dinners. We think it's a good thing [that] when we go into a country, we go in there as quickly as possible. A lot of people around him think that's neat. 'He stayed on schedule; he was only here an hour and a half.' When we've needed allies, at home and abroad, we haven't had them.'

Bunkers, by their nature, reinforce the ties, the traits, the tendencies of their occupants. Bush's bunker has reinforced his certitude, his self-confidence, his eerie calm, his conviction that his course is right. A few months ago a visitor inquired sympathetically about the burdens of office. and Bush would have none of it. "It's the best job in the world," he said. Under the circumstances, the effect is to make Bush look ... well, odd. Peggy Noonan, the former speechwriter who found for the president's father some of the most effective words he ever uttered, and who has generally been a loyal supporter of the son, recently wrote that she saw Bush's relentless cheeriness in the face of bad news as "disorienting, and strange."

It is a staple of bunker tales: The bizarrely optimistic leader, eyes glassy with resolve. The decider. The deluder in chief. Over the last year Josh Bolten and Dan Bartlett have gone out of their way to help Bush understand and overcome the apparent disconnect. At military bases around the country, and in hotel function rooms, and occasionally in the Oval Office, he meets privately with families of troops killed in Iraq, even some who are bitterly critical of him to his face, aides say. Bolten. Bartlett, and others have invited writers and historians, by no means all of them Bush supporters, to stop in for lunch or informal discussions. These visitors tend to come away with an impression similar to Peggy Noonan's. The historian Alistair Horne told the BBC after an hour-long meeting with the president. "He looked like he'd come off a cruise in the Caribbean and seemed to have none of the worries" one might have anticipated. Irwin Stelzer, a scholar at the Hudson Institute, a right-leaning think tank in Washington, and a writer for the conservative Weekly Standard, was part of a small group invited to lunch with Bush last spring. He was struck, he told me, by "the kind of calm confidence that the president exhibited, I expected to see somebody under severe pressure. None of that is going on. This is a guy who's made his decisions. He seems comfortable in them. I or someone else asked him. 'How are you reacting to the pressure?' and he said, 'I just don't feel any' He said, for instance, that 'God tells us there's good and evil, but can't tell me to put troops in Iraq; that's for me to figure out within the context of good and evil.' I don't think he has any doubt in his mind that he's made the right choice. On the other hand, he has at least enough doubts that he wants to hear other views."

A recent White House dinner guest, not a political supporter of the president's, recalled that Bush seemed to take particular comfort from Lincoln's situation in the summer of 1864, before General William Tecumseh Sherman had taken Atlanta, when some fellow Republicans were warning that Lincoln could never be re-elected if he did not abandon his insistence on emancipation. Historians might well debate the appropriateness of the analogy, but the power of such examples seems palpable for Bush.

In a telephone conversation last summer, a few weeks after he left the White House, Dan Bartlett told me that "the grossest misimpression" about Bush is that he doesn't understand the depth of opposition to his policies and the intensity of public feeling on the war, and that he is somehow unwilling to hear bad news, "The irony is, for the most part that's all he gets," Bartlett says. "From the start of the day to the end of the day, it's 80-20. When things get to the president, it's usually because it's bad news. He gets a morning report that's on his desk every morning with casualty reports. And another in the middle of the day. And another before he goes to bed. The notion that everybody tiptoes around the crux of issues or controversies is patently false."

What Bush chooses to say publicly, or even privately, is another matter entirely. "My sense is that if he expressed public doubt it would crumble like a house of cards, what public support he has left,'- Bartlett says. "What kind of message is that? In his mind, he's just one of those people who, once he makes his mind up, he's not going to be one who's second-guessing himself." Another former senior Bush aide made the same point this way: "I don't ever get a panicked call from anybody in the White House. They don't call and say, 'Oh, my God, I need a reality check.' I think they have an extraordinary awareness of how troubled some people are by their decisions, but they work for the one person who's got his eye on how history will judge him."

Doris Kearns Goodwin, the historian who began her writing career helping Lyndon Johnson with his memoirs and went on to write in-depth accounts of the wartime presidencies of Abraham Lincoln and F.D.R., has seen this trait firsthand. In 'Lyndon Johnson and the American Dream', she wrote that the lower Johnson's popularity fell, the more he proclaimed confidence in the rightness of his decisions on Vietnam. "He had committed everything he had to Vietnam," she writes. "Regardless of all evidence, he simply had to be right. To think otherwise, to entertain even the slightest doubt, was to open himself to the pain of reliving old decisions, options and possibilities long since discarded. 'No, no, no!' Johnson shouted at me one afternoon as I tried to discuss earlier opportunities for peace, 'I will NOT let you take me backward in time on Vietnam. Fifty thousand American boys are dead. Nothing we say can change that fact. Your idea that I could have chosen otherwise rests upon complete ignorance. For if I had chosen otherwise, I would have been responsible for starting World War III.'"

Dowd observes that when presidents adopt such thinking they really get in trouble. "To me, it feels a lot like what they call in business 'the fallacy of sunk costs'. You've spent 75 or 80 percent of your money and you realize you've put the building in the wrong place. So you end up putting 20 percent more into a failure because you're afraid to say you mis-spent the 80 percent." He adds: "I know from the president and Karl that they view an admission of a mistake as a sign of weakness. Interestingly enough, the American public views that as a sign of strength. People ask me what advice I'd give a politician. I say I'd have them make a mistake every week and apologize."

The aide to both Bushes who described the current president's lack of curiosity said that it extends to the most important single act of his presidency, the decision to go to war in Iraq. "I don't think we will ever, ever really have George Bush level and say why he did this," the aide says. "I think he has drunk his Kool-Aid and that's all there is to it."

What it all comes down to," a president once said, "is the man at the desk." The words are those of the first President Bash, who memorably declared in his 1988 campaign, "I am that man." His son won the second term that the father was denied, and seemed guaranteed to have a consequential presidency, one that would count in the history books. It will count in the history books. all right. So on that January morning 15 months from now, when he sits down to compose his thoughts, what will George W. Bush, the youthful failure who succeeded beyond his family's wildest imaginings, only to fail again, say to his successor? Will he write of the burdens of the job? Will he offer guidance about the pitfalls? Will he make a joke? Will he praise the virtues of perseverance? After all, the Resolute itself was stuck in the Arctic ice for two full winters. until finally drifting free.

On the surface, Bush remains as confident, as cocky, as ever. At the White House press Christmas party last year. my wife, Dee Dee Myers, a former Clinton White House press secretary, to whom Bush has been unfailingly gracious over the years, shook his hand and asked how he was, "I like a challenge!" he replied, his face crinkling into a grin. Photographs of the president may tell a different story: all the compulsive exercise in the world, all the discipline, all the public projection of confidence and bonhomie, cannot keep him from looking gray and tired and haggard — and, at last, every second of his 61 years.
Even so, he is not an old man. If the actuarial tables hold true, it will be his lot to see his legacy bitterly debated for many years. He professes to be at peace with the prospect.
"I guess I'm like any other political figure." he said during a rambling news conference last July, after being asked by Edwin Chen of Bloomberg News how he could hope to prosecute the war in Iraq without public support. "Everybody wants to be loved. Just sometimes the decisions you make, and the consequences, don't enable you to be loved. And so when it's
said and done, Ed, if you ever come down to visit the old, tired me down there in Crawford, I will be able to say I looked in the mirror and made decisions based upon principle, not based upon politics. And that's important to me."

Never mind, for the moment, that Bush's administration has been as political as any other. By some measures it has been the most politically motivated presidency of modern times, with policy on issues from science to taxes dictated by considerations of partisan advantage and ideological dogma. Bush's comment is interesting for what it says about his self-image and about how he parses his own fate. This is another staple of mythic bunker tales: the fearless leader, abandoned by the multitudes, facing the end with a remnant of his loyal band. Like a character in one of the "Left Behind" novels, Bush is waiting for the
Rapture, confident that he will be saved, validated, the unpleasant earthly realities of the moment be damned. Delayed vindication may even be more satisfying, something to relish. A few months ago. when a very senior Reagan-administration official sought to counsel Bush that it was not too late to retool his presidency, reminding him that Ronald Reagan recovered from the disaster of Iran-contra to reach a 68 percent job-approval rating on his last day in office, Bush cut the official off: No, he insisted, Reagan's ratings rebounded only later, after he had left office. The official happened to be absolutely correct, but no amount of argument could dislodge Bush from his view. His eyes were on his presidential afterlife.

Ken Adelman, the Reagan-era arms-control negotiator and longtime hawk, whose distress at Bush's mishandling of the Iraq war is so intense that it has poisoned his once close friendship with Dick Cheney, is a Shakespeare buff who makes good money by lecturing on what Shakespeare can teach modern managers. I asked him if Bush reminds him of any character in Shakespeare. "Richard II," he answered instantly, explaining that Richard was surrounded by sycophantic advisers — Bushy, Bagot. and Green — and that he alienated his people with a wasteful war against Ireland, and lost his throne to Henry IV.

"Not all the water in the rough, rude sea can wash the balm off from an anointed king," Richard proclaims in defiance at one point, sounding very much like the Decider we know so well. "The breath of worldly men cannot depose the deputy elected by the Lord." But a few short passages later, Richard is reduced to acknowledging. "You have but mistook me all this while: I live with bread like you, feel want, taste grief, need friends subjected thus. How can you say to me, I am a king?"

Every president, every person — even one as hunkered and blinkered and bunkered as George Bush - feels want, tastes grief, needs friends. Bush is hardly immune to emotion. Like all the men in his family, he is known to cry easily, if not comfortably or publicly. He has built the political and emotional prison of his bunker policy by policy and partisan stone by partisan stone. Like all presidents, he alone holds the key. Don't count on him to turn it on January 20, 2009, when he puts down his burdens and picks up his pen.

Friday, September 14, 2007

Belichick's Folly

So Bill Belichick was finally caught with his hand in the cookie jar, was he? Obviously, unless you were one of the Cleveland Browns fans before Art Model moved the team, it came as a big surprise that Mr Belichick had feet of clay. Not to many of us. For the longest time, a great number of people expressed deeply held opinions that the "perfect coach" went out of his way to make the team sub-par in order to justify his boss' desire to move the team to another city. His reward was to eventually succeed Bill Parcells and he ruthlessly did anything he could to achieve this. Now Mr. Belichick's non-apology apology is more of the same. He may have taken responsibility for his actions, but he doesn't see where he has done anything wrong - which is typical of his method of operation. Too bad. He has tainted another team with his own arrogance, yet again.

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

How to find a terrorist when Bush cannot...

Alright.

Strap yourself in, buckle down, and hold onto your heads. You're about to get a lesson in due diligence, and the awesome power of Google. Bear in mind that as this post goes to press, the Secret Service and Computer Crimes Division still consider this an "open case". Maybe one day, we'll give our friend Greg a call in the SS office and see if he has an update for us.

Anyway, on with the show.

It started with an email, like most computer crimes do, from a friend in Germany who had been hunting for funding sources for his internet idea. He forwarded me the following email:

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

I hope that my friend can recover it. But we saved everything on a second drive. So I do not hope that anything is lost.



I let you know the code as soon as I have it on hand......





Check this out..... Seems to big a big scam as well......



Hehe pay C Class Ticket



*lolllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*


HIGH BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD
EMAIL COPY ONLY

Date 23/01/2007
Thank you for supplying the Business Plan via “Business Plan Postings”, which we have now had an opportunity to study.

>From the information provided we would advise that the proposal is of interest and we would now wish to commence detailed appraisal and due diligence with a view to the issue of an Offer Commitment setting our proposed terms and conditions once this has been satisfactorily completed.

We would anticipate a facility being made by way of a combination of debt and equity, with debt secured by a debenture creating a legal charge over company assets and supported by other security and with equity in the form of Ordinary and/or Preference shares. Buy-out options are likely to be available at pre-determined intervals with a full exit.

Part of the due diligence procedure is for a senior member of the board to visit your location to interview and complete all required documentation relevant to your project.

All Costs relating to but not limited too Air Travel (business class) hotel and transportation. Official Translation. Independent Business and or Property Appraisals. The completion of all Legal contracts and their registration. Payable by the applicant upon signing the “Commitment Contract” which contains all outline terms and conditions.

Could you please confirm that you wish to proceed on this basis in order that we may commence our procedures?

We look forward to discussing this matter further with you in due course, however, please do not hesitate to contact us in the event of query.

For further information about “High Bank International Ltd” and the financial facilities offered please see our website.

Sincerely
Mr. Morris Goldman
Director of Film Finance
High Bank International Ltd
www.high-bank-int-ltd.com

The contents of this email may be privileged and are confidential. It may not be disclosed to or used by anyone other than the addressee(s), nor copied in any
way. To do so is prohibited and may be unlawful. If received in error, please advise the sender, then delete from your
system.

Although this email and attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defects which might affect any computer or IT systems into which they are received, no
responsibility is accepted by High Bank International Ltd for any loss or damage arising in any way from the receipt or use
thereof

Accepted:______________________________

Dated _________________________________

Email Address

This document must be signed by the applicant.
--
info@high-bank-int-ltd.com
-----------------------------------------------

As I always do for this guy, I performed some due diligence, starting first with the website, which spat back an address and not much else:

HighBank International Limited
The Tower
Daltongate Business Centre
Cumbria
LA12 7AJ England
Registered Company No 5777344.

Since I couldn't find much on HighBank itself, I searched for the mailing address -- and came across this:

http://www.britanniacrestuk.co.uk/mail-forwarding.html

That's right, a mail-forwarding site. According to the page, for a modest fee:

"At our prestigious offices in the North of England, your mail is sent to our address and then forwarded on to you once a week.

Example of address shown below:

XXXXX Ltd or Mr / Mrs XXXX
The Tower
Daltongate Business Centre
Daltongate
Ulverston
Cumbria
LA12 7AJ"

As you can tell, the addresses are a spot-on match except for the "Ulverston/Cumbria" difference. Highbank used this mail-forwarding service, no doubt.

Curious, I dug again, using Google to come up with any instance of the Highbank name it could find. Creditgate in the U.K., came up with this little tidbit:

https://secure.creditgate.com/search/search.aspx?AP=Full%20Non-Limited&CompanyID=05777344&CompanyType=L&BS=1&BT=Full%20Data

From here, you can clearly see, by scrolling down, that this office changed addresses:

REGISTERED OFFICE CHANGED ON 20/04/06
FROM: 44 UPPER BELGRAVE ROAD CLIFTON BRISTOL BS8 2XN

Thinking I might be onto something, I then Googled this address and pretty much spooked myself:

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/news/2006/013.htm

As it shows, this article warns "to advise that on 7 February 2006 the United Nations Sanctions Committee added a further five individuals and four entities to the UN Consolidated List maintained under Resolution 1390 (2002). The individuals and entities therefore fall within the UK financial sanctions regime under the Al-Qa’ida and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/111, as amended by S.I. 2002/251).

Financial institutions and other persons are required to check whether they maintain any accounts or otherwise hold any funds, other financial assets, economic benefits and economic resources for the individuals and entities named below. If so, they should freeze the accounts or other funds and report their findings to the Bank of England."

Scrolling down the list of entities/individuals, my heart just about stopped:

1. MEADOWBROOK INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Address: 44 Upper Belgrave Road, Clifton, Bristol, United Kingdom, BS8 2XN
Other Information: Registration number 05059698.


Compare this address to the CreditGate address -- and it's a spot-on match...

...And that's how you find a terrorist! :-)

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Go Keith Olbermann, Go!

(Excerpt from Countdown on MSNBC, June 4th, 2007)

Our third story on the COUNTDOWN, from the mind bending idea that four guys dressed as pizza delivery men were going to outgun all the soldiers at Fort Dix to the not too thought out plan to blow up JFK airport by lighting a match 40 miles away, here we go again. Time for an update of our segment, the Nexus of Politics and Terror. The instance is now 13 in number when those two worlds have overlapped and we are reminded by our government, with or without justification, that we should always fear fear itself.

We offer two prefaces tonight, one the words of Dennis Milligan, the new state chairman of the Republican party in Arkansas, who says about Iraq, to the newspaper “the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, quote, “At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing. And I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on September 11th, 2001, and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country.”

“All we need is some attacks on American soil,” said the Republican party chairman in Arkansas, Arkansas. in the United States. that Arkansas! The other preamble, we remind you again that coincidences can happen, that the logical fallacy insists that just because event A occurs and then event B occurs, that does not automatically mean that event A caused event B. But neither does it say the opposite.

The Nexus of Politics and Terror updated through today. Please judge for yourself.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

OLBERMANN: Number one, May 18th, 2002; the first details of the president‘s daily briefing of August 6th, 2001 are revealed, including its title “Bin laden determined to strike in U.S.” The same day, another memo is discovered revealing the FBI knew of men with links to al Qaeda training at an Arizona flight school. The memo was never acted upon.

Questions about 9/11 intelligence failures are swirling. May 20th, 2002.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The terror warnings from the highest level of the federal government tonight are—

OLBERMANN: Two days later, FBI Director Mueller declares that another terrorist attack is “inevitable.”

The next day, the Department of Homeland Security issues warnings of attacks against railroads nationwide, and against New York City landmarks like the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Number two, Thursday, June 6th, 2002.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I never really anticipated this kind of impact.

OLBERMANN: Coleen Rowley, the FBI agent who tried to alert her superiors to the specialized flight training taken by Zacarias Moussaoui, whose information suggests the government missed the chance to break up the 9/11 plot, testifies before Congress. Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Graham says Rowley‘s testimony has inspired similar pre-9/11 whistle blower.

Monday June 10th, four days later.

JOHN ASHCROFT, FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL: We have disrupted an unfolding terrorist plot.

OLBERMANN: Speaking from Russia, Attorney General John Ashcroft reveals that an American name Jose Padilla is under arrest, accused of plotting a radiation bomb attack in this country. In fact, Padilla had by this time already been detained for more than one month.

Number three, February 5th, 2003; Secretary of State Powell tells the United Nations Security Council of Iraq‘s concealment of weapon, including his 18 mobile biological weapons laboratories, justifying a U.N. or U.S. first strike. Many in the U.N. are doubtful.

Months later, much of the information proves untrue.

February 7th, 2003; Two days later. As anti-war demonstrations continue to take place around the globe.

TOM RIDGE, FORMER HOMELAND SECURITY DIRECTOR: Take some time to prepare for an emergency.

OLBERMANN: Homeland Security Secretary Ridge cites credible threats by al Qaeda and raises the terror alert level to orange. Three days after that, Fire Administrator David Paulison, who would become the acting head of FEMA after the Hurricane Katrina disaster advises Americans to stock up on plastic sheeting and duct tape to protect themselves against radiological or biological attack.

Number four, July 23rd, 2003; the White House admits that the CIA, months before the president‘s State of the Union Address, expressed strong doubts about the claim that Iraq had attempt to buy uranium from Niger. On the 24th, the Congressional report on the 9/11 attacks is issued. It criticizes government at all levels. It reveals an FBI informant had been living with two of the future hijackers.

It concludes that Iraq had no link to al Qaeda. Twenty eight pages of the report are redacted. On the 26th, American troops are accused of beating Iraqi prisoners.

July 29th, 2003, three days later; amid all of the negative headline.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Word of a possible new al Qaeda attack.

OLBERMANN: Homeland Security issues warnings of further terrorist attempts to use airplanes for suicide attacks.

Number five, December 17th, 2003; 9/11 Commission co-chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. The next day, a federal appeals court says the government cannot detain suspected radiation bomber Jose Padilla indefinitely without charges, and the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq, Dr. David Kay, who has previously announced he has found no weapons of mass destruction there, announces he will resign his post.

December 21st, 2003, four days later; the Sunday before Christmas.

RIDGE: Today the United States government raised the national threat level.

OLBERMANN: Homeland Security again raises the threat level to orange, claiming credible intelligence of further plots to crash airliner into U.S. cities. Subsequently, six international flights into this country are canceled after some passenger names purportedly produced matches on government no fly lists. The French later identified those matched names. One belongs to an insurance salesman from Wales, another to an elderly Chinese woman, a third to a five-year-old boy.

Number six, March 30th, 2004; the new chief weapons inspector in Iraq, Charles Duelfer, tells Congress we have still not found any WMD in that country. And, after weeks of having refused to appear before the 9/11 Commission, Condoleezza Rice relents and agrees to testify.

On the 31st, four Blackwater USA contractors working in Iraq are murdered. Their mutilated bodies dragged through the streets and left on public display in Fallujah. The role of civilian contractors in Iraq is now widely questioned.

April 2nd, 2004 --

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: The FBI has issued a new warning tonight.

OLBERMANN: Homeland Security issues a bulletin warning that terrorists may try to blow up buses and trains using fertilizer and fuel bombs like the one detonate in Oklahoma City, bombs stuffed into satchels or duffel bags.

Number seven, May 16th, 2004; Secretary of State Powell appears on “Meet the Press.” Moderator Tim Russert closes by asking him about the enormous personal credibility Powell had placed before the U.N. in laying out a case against Saddam Hussein. An aide to Powell interrupts the question, saying the interview is over.

TIM RUSSERT, NBC NEWS ANCHOR: I think that was one of your staff, Mr. secretary. I don‘t think that‘s appropriate.

COLIN POWELL, FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE: Emily, get out of the way.

OLBERMANN: Powell finishes his answer, admitting that much of the

information he had been given about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was

POWELL: Inaccurate and wrong, and, in some cases, deliberately misleading.

OLBERMANN: On the 21st, new photos showing mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison are released. On the 24th, Associated Press video from Iraq confirms U.S. forces mistakenly bombed a wedding party, killing more than 40.

Wednesday, May 26th, 2004, two days later.

ASHCROFT: Good afternoon.

OLBERMANN: Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller warned that intelligence from multiple sources—

ASHCROFT: Indicates al Qaeda‘ specific intention to hit the United States hard.

OLBERMANN: And that 90 percent of the arrangements for an attack on the United States were complete. The color coded warning system is not raised. The Homeland Security secretary, Tom Ridge, does not attend the announcement.

Number eight, July 6th, 2004; Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry selects Senator John Edwards as his vice-presidential running mate, producing a small bump in the election opinion polls and producing a huge swing in media attention towards the Democratic campaign.

July 8th, 2004, two days later.

RIDGE: Credible reporting now indicates al Qaeda is moving forward with its plan to carry out a large scale attack in the United States.

OLBERMANN: Homeland Secretary Ridge warns of information about al Qaeda attacks during the summer or autumn. Four days after that, the head of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Deforest B. Soaries Jr., confirms he has written to Ridge about the prospect of postponing the upcoming presidential election in the case the event it is interrupted by terrorist attacks.

Number nine, July 29th, 2004; at their party convention in Boston, the Democrats formally nominate John Kerry as their candidate for president. As in the wake of any convention, the Democrats now dominate the media attention over the subsequent weekend.

August 1st, 2004, Monday morning, three days later.

RIDGE: It is as reliable a source—a group of sources as we‘ve ever seen before.

OLBERMANN: The Department of Homeland Security raises the alert status for financial centers in New York, New Jersey and Washington to orange. The evidence supporting the warning, reconnaissance data left in a home in Iraq; later prove to be roughly four years old and largely out of date.

Number ten, October 6th, 2005, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time; the president addresses the National Endowment for Democracy, once again, emphasizing the importance of the war on terror and insisting his government has broken up at least 10 terrorist plots since 9/11.

At 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time, five hour after the president‘s speech has begun, the Associate Press reports that Karl Rove will testify again to the CIA leak Grand Jury and that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has told Rove he cannot guarantee that he will not be indicted.

CHRIS MATTHEWS, MSNBC ANCHOR: We‘re awaiting a news conference at the bottom of the hour.

OLBERMANN: At 5:17 p.m. Eastern time, seven hour after the president‘s speech has begun, New York official disclosed a bomb threat to the city‘ subway system based on information supplied by the federal government. The Homeland Security spokesman says the intelligence upon which the disclosure is based is of doubtful credibility.

And later it proves that New York City had known of the threat for at least three days and had increased police presence in the subways long before making the announcement at that particular time. Local New York television station WNBC reports it had the story of the threats days in advance of the announcement, but was asked by high ranking federal officials in New York and Washington to hold off on its story.

Less than four days after having reveal the threat, Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York says, since the period of the three now seems to be passing, I think over the immediate future, we‘ll slowly be winding down the enhanced security. While news organizations, ranging from the “New York Post” to NBC New quote sources who say there was reason to believe the informant who triggered the warning simply made it up.

A senior U.S. counter terrorism official tells the “New York Times,” quote, there was no there there.

Number 11, a sequence of event in August 2006 best understood now in chronological order. As the month begins, the controversy over domestic surveillance without legal warrants in this country crests. Then on August 9th, the day after the Connecticut Democratic Senatorial Primary, Vice President Cheney says the victory of challenger Ned Lamont over incumbent Joe Lieberman is a positive for the, quote, al Qaeda types, who he says, quote, “clearly betting on the proposition that ultimately they break the will of the American people, in terms of our ability to stay in the fight.”

The next day, British authorities arrest 24 suspects in an alleged imminent plot to blow up U.S. bound aircraft using liquid explosives smuggled on board in sports drink bottles. Domestic air travel is thrown into chaos as carry-on liquids are suddenly banned.

On August 14th, British intelligence reveals it did not think the plot was imminent. Only the U.S. did. And our authorities pressed to make the arrests. Eleven of the 24 suspect are later released. And in the months to come, the carry-on liquids ban is repeatedly relaxed.

Number 12, May 7th, 2007, Greensburg, Kansas leveled by a tornado and the state‘ governor notes, more in sorrow than in anger, that the redeployment of so much of the Kansas National Guard and its equipment to Iraq might now cripple the soldiers‘ ability to respond if another disaster hits Kansas.

GOV. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS (D), KANSAS: What we‘re really missing is equipment. And that is putting a strain on recoveries like this one.

OLBERMANN: The next day, the authorities announce arrests in a far-fetched plan to attack soldiers at Fort Dix in New Jersey. The so-called terrorists planned to gain access to the base by posing as pizza delivery men. It is not a suicide mission. They state clearly, they intend to kill personnel and then retreat to safety, even though they were going to attack a closed compound, full of trained soldiers with weapons.

And though the plan is branded sophisticated, its perpetrators are not sophisticated enough to have not handed over the videotape of themselves training with weapons to a Circuit City store in order to be transferred to DVD. The Fort Dix plot not only erases from most news coverage the issue of disaster readiness in Kansas, but it also obscures the next day‘ story that in anticipation of his testimony to a House panel, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has submitted opening remarks that match, virtually word for word, the remarks he had given the previous month to a Senate committee.

ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL: Recognizing my limit involvement in the process, a mistake I freely acknowledge—

a mistake that I freely acknowledge, I have soberly questioned my prior decisions.

OLBERMANN: And number 13, June, 2007, the JFK plot to blow up the jet fuel pipeline feeding John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City, thus causing the entire airport to be consumed in an horrific conflagration. One of the men arrested has, as past employee access, to the sprawling complex, but little knowledge of the reality of the pipeline system.

The manager of that system tells the “New York Times” that the pipeline is not some kind of fuse. Shut off valves throughout would have easily contain any damage, just as a leak in a tunnel in any city would not flood everything in that city below ground. The so called plot happens to be revealed the day before the second Democratic presidential debate.

And as the scandal continues to unfold over the firings of U.S. attorneys, and their replacements by political hacks, the so called plot is announced by the Bush appointed U.S. attorney for Brooklyn, New York, and by the police chief of New York City, the father of a correspondent for Fox News Channel.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

OLBERMANN: In all fairness, we could probably construct a similar timeline of terror events and their relationship to the haircuts of popular politicians. But if merely a reasonable case can be made that any of these juxtapositions of events are more than just coincidences, if that case can be made on this, the very day that a military judge at Guantanamo Bay dismissed all terror charges that have kept Salim Hamdan jailed there for five years, it underscores the need for questions to be asked and asked continually in this country, questions about what is prudence and what is just fear mongering?

(And if it's not 100% OBVIOUS to you readers by now, do we really need to tell you a damned thing more?)

...TheScribes...