Thursday, January 29, 2004
TOP WMD HOUNDOG HOWLS: NOTHING HERE, BOSS
'We were all wrong'
Iraq did not possess banned weapons, former arms expert tells senators
By PAUL KORING
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Washington — ''We were all wrong'' — Iraq had no remaining arsenals of germ-warfare weapons, no poison gas or a nuclear-weapons program, the White House's former chief weapons sleuth said yesterday, a stunning indictment of U.S. and Western intelligence agencies that undermines President George W. Bush's original justification for ousting Saddam Hussein.
David Kay's calm but candid and sweeping repudiation before the U.S. Senate's armed-services committee will also fuel the political firestorm over whether Mr. Bush misled Americans and the rest of the world when he launched a pre-emptive attack against Iraq last spring. The White House's core claim at the time was that Mr. Hussein, armed with weapons of mass destruction, posed a real and imminent threat to the United States.
"It turns out we were all wrong," said Mr. Kay, a former United Nations weapons inspector and top Central Intelligence Agency adviser who led the postwar Iraq Survey Group's search for banned weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Kay, who included himself among those who were incorrect, quit last week after uncovering no stockpiles and finding that the Pentagon was shifting resources from his group.
In effect, Mr. Kay's testimony lends credence to Iraq's insistence before the UN last year that it no longer had stocks of germ-warfare weapons, poison gas or an active nuclear-weapons program.
Mr. Kay laid the blame on deeply flawed intelligence gathering, not only by the CIA but also by France, Germany and others who agreed with the assessment that Baghdad had failed to destroy its stocks of banned weapons and might still be producing them.
"That is most disturbing," Mr. Kay said, adding that the spies had been equally wrong in underestimating the scope of nuclear-weapons programs in Iran, North Korea and Libya.
Leading Democrats greeted Mr. Kay's revelations even more harshly.
Senator Edward Kennedy, one of the lone voices against the war when the U.S. Senate gave Mr. Bush overwhelming backing for the war, pointedly rejected Mr. Kay's assessment that even without stockpiles of banned weapons, Mr. Hussein posed a "gathering, serious threat."
"Gathering, serious threat . . . those were the words that justified us going into war?" Mr. Kennedy asked, echoing the words of leading Democrat presidential contenders, who have already been focusing on Mr. Bush's rationale for war as a key election issue.
Mr. Kay, who said there had been no political pressure to tone down his findings, told the committee he believes the world "is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein," although violence in Iraq itself continues. Yesterday, a suicide bomber killed three people and injured 17 others when he exploded a van disguised as an ambulance in front of a hotel frequented by Westerners.
But Mr. Kay argued the regime in North Korea is a more serious threat than pre-war Iraq.
"North Korea is an enigma, probably with nuclear weapons and long-range missiles," he said. "I would probably put it higher up on my scale of gathering threat. I think it's an existing threat." Mr. Bush has never voiced explicit willingness to launch a pre-emptive war against North Korea, although his doctrine specifically calls for rogue, terrorist-sponsoring states to be prevented from acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Kay also suggested the full scope of Iraq's banned weapons programs may never be known and suggested that some stocks and documentation may have been secreted across the border to Syria.
"I would say probable," he said. "But my personal belief is that they did not move large stockpiles, because I do not believe they had reconstituted a capability that had produced large stockpiles."
He also suggested that a full-scale inquiry into what appears to have been a colossal intelligence failure may be needed.
"It is going to take an outside inquiry, both to do it and to give yourself and the American people the confidence that you have done it," he told the senators.
------------------------------
Throughout the hearing, Dr. Kay was adamant that the Iraq Survey Group had found no evidence that the Hussein government or military held any large stockpiles of unconventional weapons when America invaded last March. The Bush administration has been adamant in its assertions that the Hussein government or military did indeed hold any large stockpiles of unconventional weapons when America invaded last March, and we should stop wasting time with UN inspections and verifications and kick his ass now now NOW.
In response to Dr. Kay's testimony, the pResident babbled:
"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussain was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know. There is no doubt in my mind that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussain. America is more secure. The world is safer and the people of Iraq are free."
Whew. I'm glad that's all settled then. Now, about that 8 trillion dollar deficit, George...Wednesday, January 28, 2004
A POLITICAL JUNKIE ASKS THE HARD QUESTION
Ask people when a senator last got elected - it's been 44 years since Kennedy slipped by Nixon in 1960. Senators lose in general elections (Gore, Dole, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey, Goldwater), but governors win (Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.)!
The last time a governor lost (in the general election) running against a sitting president was 130 years ago. Senators have to run away from their voting records and governors can run on their results.
Sending a senator into the general election is one way to guarantee a landslide - in the wrong direction. See Dole in 1996, Mondale in 1984, McGovern in 1972, Humphrey in 1968, and Goldwater in 1964.
Why hasn't the media picked up on this?
Posted by Josh Kotler at January 28, 2004 08:17 PMWednesday, January 28, 2004
BOTOX IN THE BUTTOX
John Kerry pre-Botox
John Kerry post-Botox
---------
Smooth! Docs Say Senator Kerry Looks Botoxed
by Alexandra Wolfe
When the question was put to Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry on Boston talk radio station WRKO AM 860 on Jan. 28, speculation had been percolating for a week:
"Can you categorically deny the reports that you have used Botox or other kind[s] of cosmetic surgery or cosmetic enhancements to your appearance," one of the hosts of the Blute and Scotto show asked the presidential candidate, fresh off his New Hampshire primary win.
"Absolutely, I've never even heard it," Mr. Kerry responded. "I've never even heard of it."
Whether the senator was denying he'd heard the media reports insinuating that, somewhere between Iowa and New Hampshire, Botox injections had erased the ravine-like worry lines traversing his football-field sized forehead, or, more improbably, claiming complete ignorance about the plastic surgery procedure that has been in vogue since the 90's, a number of doctors interviewed by the Observer said they were certain the candidate had had some work done.
"He's definitely gotten Botox," said Dr. Michael Kane, the Manhattan-based plastic surgeon and author of The Botox Book. Sen. Kerry, the doctor explained, "has certain facial motions, characteristic expressions that he makes all the time. Like when he frowns, he tends to push the center of his eyebrows up. It's a trademark of John Kerry's -- and he just can't make that happen now," said Dr. Kane. "That's the look that's normally plastered on his face and it never happened once on his victory speech."
Indeed, Dr. Kane suggested that Sen. Kerry might seek a second opinion. "What he's got isn't Botox, it's bad Botox," the doctor said. "He has what I call the classic rookie mistake which is, in a man who has a lot of horizontal lines on his forehead, the botox is overdone in the person's forehead. It changes normal emotions, facial expressions; now his eyebrows are incredibly low because someone has over-injected them. His forehead is bizarrely smooth, his eyebrows now sit right on his eyes and if you look at the Drudge Report pictures he now has classic bunny lines." He explained that "bunny lines" happen "when so many muscles are over paralyzed" that the Botox recipient begins to rely on "the unusual muscles on the sides of his nose, making those little scrunchy lines on his nose -- so he looks like a bunny."
Surveying the "Before" and "After" shots of Mr. Kerry that were posted, along with the WRKO soundbite, on Matt Drudge's website, New Jersey plastic surgeon Barry Citron let out a whoop and exclaimed, "That's definitely the most effective $600 he could spend on his campaign!" That would be the cost of the 30-40 units of Botox that Dr. Citron guessed Mr. Kerry would have needed to smooth the expanse above his eyes.
"I'm willing to bet that between the beginning of Iowa and end of New Hampshire he had some Botox done," said Dr. Michael Sachs. The Manhattan-based plastic surgeon said he could tell because Mr. Kerry looked much less haggard last Tuesday night than he did in Iowa, and because, he added: "His eyebrows didn't move."
Dr. Sachs, explained that Botox, which is created from the botulinum toxin type A (there are seven different types), starts working its muscle-relaxing magic in three to five days, peaks at two weeks and lasts between three to five months.
"Down the road, he may look even more relaxed and his eyebrows may droop even more," Dr. Sachs explained. Come convention time in July, however, the candidate will need a booster shot.
One plastic surgeon, Manhattan's Dr. Patricia Wexler, disagreed with the pack. "No, I don't believe he has," she said. "Much more is being made out of this than reality. It's the vertical lines" -- she called them "scowl lines" -- "that are considered negative, and I don't think he's had those done." Dr. Wexler then recommended that all politicans have their scowl lines removed. "It would've done Gore or Dole good to get rid of them," she said. Her diagnosis of Sen. Kerry: "He's more relaxed because he's been winning," she said.
Or was Mr. Kerry winning because he looked relaxed? Hamptons cosmetic surgeon Dr. Bruce Nadler opined that Mr. Kerry's new look was responsible for his win in New Hampshire. "The issues are 50 percent, but voters are also looking for someone who is likeable, who has a calming influence. He has a more relaxed look whereas you'd expect him to look more haggard, more tired as this campaign grinds away," said Dr. Nadler. "If Edwards is so much younger and winning votes as a result, and that's going to sway the crowd, Kerry thinks, 'If this other guy has a youthful look, then youthful looks are going to help me. I could win over some of his supporters if I look a little more youthful as well.' It's a campaign strategy. Look at poor Joe Lieberman, he's not doing very well, maybe he looks a little too senior."
Whatever the case, Sen. Kerry's press secretary David Wade, sounded flabbergasted by the accusations. "John Kerry has not had botox treatments," Mr. Wade wrote in an email. "And since when do plastic surgeons make diagnoses from Drudge Report photos? While it's amazing how two big victories in Iowa and New Hampshire can put a smile on your face, it's equally astounding how desperation leads our opponents to invent accusations. They can't run against John Kerry on health care, education, or national security, so they're attacking his looks."
Of course, in New York, a town where plastic surgery ranks right up there with cable and psychotherapy on urbanites' necessity lists, what's really driving the did-he-or-didn't-he? debate is whether Sen. Kerry lied about something as minor as a question about his physical upkeep. As Dr. Kane observed: "If it becomes an issue it goes right to his credibility."
But New York-based political campaign consultant Hank Sheinkopf explained why a presidential candidate might not be eager to admit he's a primper. "I don't think this country is ready for the Botox president yet,." said Mr. Sheinkopf, who was a member of Bill Clinton's media team from '95 to '96 and has helped elect numerous New York politicians such as Bill Thompson and Betsy Gotbaum. "I can't imagine the president having facial peels every month or having electrolysis. His problem is to be man enough to convince the Reagan Democrats in the Midwest, and Botox ain't gonna help!"
You may reach Alexandra Wolfe via email at: awolfe@observer.com.
Wednesday, January 28, 2004
ALL IN THE FAMILY BUSINESS
"Oh, Brother"
(The Age Company Ltd
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/08/1073437410662.html)
January 9, 2004
Peter Carlson reports.
Sharon and Neil Bush with daughters Lauren and Ashly.
Picture: Big Pictures
Neil Bush has joined the great tradition of embarrassing presidential relatives.
Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush. When you’re Neil Bush, rich people are eager to invest in your businesses, even though your businesses have a history of crashing in spectacular fashion.
When you're Neil Bush, you'll be sitting in a hotel room in Thailand or Hong Kong, minding your own business, when suddenly there's a knock at the door. You answer it and a comely woman strolls in and has sex with you. Life sure is fun when you’re Neil Bush, son of one president, brother of another.
Just how much fun was revealed in a deposition taken last March, during Bush’s nasty divorce. Asked by his wife’s lawyer whether he’d had any extramarital affairs, Bush told the story of his Asian hotel room escapades.
"Mr Bush," said lawyer Marshall Davis Brown, "you have to admit that it’s a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her."
"It was very unusual," Bush replied. Actually, it wasn't that unusual. It happened at least three or four times during Bush's business trips to Asia, he said. "Were they prostitutes?" asked Brown. "I don’t — I don't know," Bush replied.
"Did you pay them?" "No." Unsurprisingly, the revelation made headlines worldwide. Equally unsurprisingly, the sex story overshadowed the curious financial revelations that came out in the same deposition.
In 2002, for instance, Bush signed a consulting contract with Grace Semiconductor — a Shanghai company. He is to be paid $US2 million ($A2.6 million) in company stock over five years, plus $US10,000 for every board meeting he attends.
"Now, you have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors, do you, Mr Bush?" Brown asked.
"That's correct," Bush responded. Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush. Bush is the latest manifestation of an American tradition: the president's embarrassing relative.
There was Sam Houston Johnson, who used to get drunk and blab to the press until his brother, Lyndon, sicced the Secret Service on him. And Donald Nixon, who dreamed of founding a fast-food chain called Nixonburgers and who accepted, but never repaid, a $US200,000 loan from billionaire Howard Hughes.
And Billy Carter, who drank prodigious quantities of beer, wrote a book called Redneck Power and took $US200,000 from the government of Libya. And Roger Clinton, who spent a year in prison for cocaine dealing. But Neil Bush has surpassed them all: He has become the embarrassing relative of two presidents.
In the late ’80s and early ’90s, Bush embarrassed his father, George Bush snr, with his dealings as board member of the infamous Silverado Savings and Loan, whose collapse cost American taxpayers $US1 billion. Now Bush has embarrassed his brother George with a divorce that featured paternity rumours, a defamation suit and even allegations of voodoo.
Born in 1955 as third of the five Bush children, Neil has a degree in international economics and an MBA. In 1979, while working on his father's unsuccessful campaign for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, Neil met Sharon Smith. They married and moved to Denver, where Bush got a $US30,000 job negotiating mineral leases for Amoco.
In 1982, Neil and two co-workers quit and formed an oil exploration company, JNB Exploration. Bush was in charge of raising money. "Neil knew people because of his name," one partner, Evans Nash, said later.
Among those Bush knew were two real estate barons, Bill Walters and Ken Good. Walters invested $US150,000 and set up a $US1.75 million line of credit for JNB at a bank he owned. Good invested $US10,000 and pledged loans worth $US1.5 million. Good also lent Bush $US100,000 to gamble in the commodities market and said Neil didn't have to repay it unless he made money.
Bush paid himself $US66,000 a year. In five years JNB drilled 26 wells but found not a drop of exploitable oil. It would have gone bankrupt if not for Walters and Good.
But Bush was able to help the men who helped him. In 1985 he joined the board of Silverado Savings and Loan. Over the next three years, Silverado lent another $US106 million to Walters and $US35 million to Good.
Good used some of that money to buy JNB, raising Bush's salary and awarding him a $US22,000 bonus. He also hired Bush as a director of one of his companies, at a $US100,000 salary. Neither Good nor Walters ever repaid their loans. In 1988 Silverado went belly up.
Regulators from the federal Office of Thrift Supervision concluded in 1991 that Bush's deals with Good and Walters constituted "multiple conflicts of interest". Bush became a public symbol of the $US500 billion savings and loan scandal. Bush then started Apex Energy, a methane gas exploration company. He invested $US3000 himself and got $US2.3 million from companies run by his father's friend Louis Marx, heir to the Marx toy fortune.
Neil paid himself a salary of $US160,000 and sold a Wyoming gas lease he owned to Apex. The lease proved worthless. Apex went broke after two years.
An investigation by the House Small Business Committee found nothing illegal or improper but noted that a $US2 million federally guaranteed investment to an applicant who risked only $US3000 of his own money seemed like "a very high leveraging of funds".
For several years, Bush's main business interest has been Ignite!, a software company he cofounded in 1999. To fund it, Bush has raised $US23 million. Last year, Ignite! entered into a partnership with a Mexican company. The partnership enabled Ignite! to lay off half of its 70 employees and outsource their jobs to Mexico.
"That's turned out to be great," says Ignite! president Ken Leonard.
"He's incorrigible," says historian Kevin Phillips, author of the forthcoming book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush. "He seems to be crawling through the underbelly of crony capitalism."
Bush vehemently denies that. "I have never used my family name to 'cash-in'," he wrote by email. "Unfortunately, such ridiculous charges come with the territory of coming from a famous and public family."
The territory of divorce can be troublesome, too. In 2002, Bush told Sharon that he wanted to separate. He took up with Maria Andrews, who was an aide to his mother. The divorce was a candidate for the Nasty Break-up Hall of Fame. Among claims aired was that Sharon had yanked hair out of Bush’s head to make a voodoo doll and put a curse on him.
These days Bush divides his time between Texas — home of his children and Ignite! — and Paris, where Maria lives.
Somehow, even after all his travails, it's still nice to be Neil Bush.