The Onion, National News - Redbook Reporter in Danger?

Redbook Reporter Refuses To Disclose Source Of Recipe

ATLANTA—A federal judge said Monday that magazine writer Nancy Steuber will be held in contempt of court if she continues to withhold the source of a recipe for maple-glazed ham published in Redbook magazine in February.

Read more src="http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Redbook-Reporter-C.frontpage_thumbnail.jpg" width=250>

Cheney, Rumsfeld, Libby, et al Calls for Invasion of Iraq; As Far Back As 1997

Why Are We Where We Are Now?

I assume that you all have read these letters from Cheney, (Jeb) Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby and others of "The Project for the New American Century" before to Clinton and to Gingrich/Lott. (Following after this note) . They're dated from as far back as 1997 and 1998, before they took office and quite widely known by the likes of many of you. I realize I'm likely not telling you all something you do not already know. So my apologies, but gentle reminders of fact are important in present times. As Cheney has now told the public that the previous (Clinton) administration agreed with this administration's views, and that the war rationale was "An Al Qaida threat and WMD's" versus "Promoting freedom in Iraq (the current rationale)", the letters are very pertinent. I've not noticed any of these being cited by those who are now saying that Clinton agreed with their tactics, or that they later determined that it was necessary to go to war with Iraq AFTER the election. These letters read quite differently.

Since I assume you've read them, it's a gentle reminder that the war was planned (or at least forcefully pushed) by the group in the current Bush administration before they took office, and before Al Qaida attacked us. So this interesting reminder to us all of the push for war with Iraq which began long ago by the current group in the administration, as stated in these letters on their own web site, is sobering. The single-mindedness towards the Iraq goal, even now, regardless of Al Qaida attacks, is at least interesting.

Here (2nd letter that follows) are the letters from Rumsfeld, Libby, Wolfowitz, Cheney, et al, to Clinton in 1998, urging him to go to war in Iraq, and to Lott and Gingrich, doing the same, and also telling Lott and Gingrich that Clinton had refused to follow their advice to go to war with Iraq. (Not exactly what Cheney is now stating.)

You can download the .pdf file on TPNAF's "Rebuilding America's Defenses". You can also get their "Statement of Purpose" on their web site, which I attached at the bottom here. It helps to keep the facts in good, chronological order. The group also talks of "politicizing" foreign affairs and the war in their campaign 2000 memo, though it is not thought generally acceptable at that point. I've excerpted letters to Trent Lott and Newt Gingrich in 1998 about how we'll be welcomed in a war. You'll be amazed to see the signers of the letters and documents. Go to the websites if you wish to see the full letters. (DL)

read on below, or at http://www.newamericancentury.org/ or for specifics pre-2000, http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm (letters below)

-----------------------------------
May 29, 1998

The Honorable Newt Gingrich, Speaker of the House
U.S. House of Representatives H-232 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20515-6501
The Honorable Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader
United States Senate
S-208 Capitol Building
Washington, DC 20510-7010

Dear Mr. Speaker and Senator Lott:

On January 26, we sent a letter to President Clinton expressing our concern that the U.S. policy of "containment" of Saddam Hussein was failing...We recommended a substantial change in the direction of U.S. policy: Instead of further, futile efforts to "contain" Saddam, we argued that the only way to protect the United States and its allies from the threat of weapons of mass destruction was to put in place policies that would lead to the removal of Saddam and his regime from power. The administration has not only rejected this advice ... (Editor's note: Is this the part where Clinton agreed with the policy, as Cheney stated in his speech?)

In February, the Clinton Administration embraced the agreement reached between the UN Secretary Koffi Annan and the Iraqi government on February 23. (Oops. Maybe it was here that Clinton agreed with their call to war. Ed.)

In the face of this new challenge from Saddam, however, the President's public response has been only to say that he is "encouraged" by Iraq's compliance with the UN inspections and to begin reducing U.S. military forces in the Gulf region. Unwilling either to adopt policies that would remove Saddam ... (I'm SURE this is where he agreed with their policies...Ed.)

-- We will have sustained a significant defeat in our worldwide efforts to limit the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
-- Our friends and allies in the Middle East and Europe will soon be subject to forms of intimidation by an Iraqi government bent on dominating the Middle East and its oil reserves;

Mr. Speaker and Mr. Lott, during the most recent phase of this crisis, you both took strong stands, stating that the goal of U.S. policy should be to bring down Saddam and his regime.

Now that the administration has failed to provide sound leadership, we believe it is imperative that Congress take what steps it can to correct U.S. policy toward Iraq. That responsibility is especially pressing when presidential leadership is lacking or when the administration is pursuing a policy fundamentally at odds with vital American security interests. This is now the case. (Editor's note: I wonder how they might feel about that tactic now?)

U.S. policy should have as its explicit goal removing Saddam Hussein's regime from power and establishing a peaceful and democratic Iraq in its place. (I'm sorry to editorialize again here, but this is 1998. Was it a surprise that we were finally going in 2003, no matter what?) We recognize that this goal will not be achieved easily...To accomplish Saddam's removal, the following political and military measures should be undertaken:

-- We should take whatever steps are necessary to challenge Saddam Hussein's claim to be Iraq's legitimate ruler, including indicting him as a war criminal;

-- We should help establish and support (with economic, political, and military means) a provisional, representative, and free government of Iraq in areas of Iraq not under Saddam's control;

-- We should use U.S. and allied military power to provide protection for liberated areas in northern and southern Iraq; and -- We should establish and maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the region, and be prepared to use that force to protect our vital interests in the Gulf - and, if necessary, to help remove Saddam from power

... the reality is that his (Saddam's) regime remains vulnerable to the exercise of American political and military power. There is reason to believe, moreover, that the citizens of Iraq are eager for an alternative to Saddam, and that his grip on power is not firm. This will be much more the case once it is made clear that the U.S. is determined to help remove Saddam from power, and that an acceptable alternative to his rule exists. (Ed. again - is this the part where flowers will be tossed at our soldiers' feet? What's currently being tossed at their feet packs a bit more punch and doesn't smell as sweet.)

Sincerely,

Elliot Abrams William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner
John R. Bolton Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad William Kristol Richard Perle Peter Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber Paul Wolfowitz
R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton

President of the United States

Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President:


We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, ...We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.

...we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam ... Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. ...experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq's chemical and biological weapons production. ...As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.

It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, ...a significant portion of the world's supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. (now as in 1998 now or as in 2003 now? Ed.)

We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf.

Sincerely,

Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton

Paula Dobriansky Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick

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

June 3, 1997
The Project for the New American Century

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives ... have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power...Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power... The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire.

Here are four consequences:
- we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
- we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

Elliott Abrams Gary Bauer William J. Bennett Jeb Bush Dick Cheney Eliot A. Cohen Midge Decter Paula Dobriansky Steve Forbes Aaron Friedberg

Francis Fukuyama

Frank Gaffney Fred C. Ikle Donald Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad I. Lewis Libby

Norman Podhoretz Dan Quayle Peter W. Rodman Stephen P. Rosen

Henry S. Rowen Donald Rumsfeld Vin Weber George Weigel Paul Wolfowitz

Triumph the Insult Dog Interviews Republican Congressmen on Global Warming

Triumph the Insult dog interviews Republicans on global warming. Would you vote for these guys in the next election? They were bested by a pooch. http://comedy.aol.com/tcf?defaultItem=18

In Their Own Words - taking a right turn today

Greetings From Pennsylvania
Out of the Blue... State

1. O'Reilly doesn't seem to know his loofah from his left. And perhaps he should keep his hands on his loofah and out of America's well being. Or.. as my WWII Dad (D-Day at Omaha, no less) would have said - Friend or enema? (DL)

Bill O'Reilly takes aim at San Francisco: Fox host reportedly said it was OK for terrorists to target the city
MSNBC Updated: 1:03 p.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/
Does Bill O'Reilly have it in for the city by the bay? San Franciscans have been in an uproar this week over apparent comments by the host of Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that it was A-OK for terrorists to wipe the city off the map.

At issue are comments from O'Reilly's Election Day broadcast on his syndicated Westwood One radio show about a San Francisco ballot measure opposing the presence of military recruiters in city schools. if al-Qaida comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco.

You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead," O'Reilly continued, referring to the 1933 San Francisco landmark that sits atop Telegraph Hill.

2. How about those who chose NOT to serve when given the chance in Vietnam? Would O'Reilly rather not protect them, as well? Here's one of them. (DL)

Rove re-emerges at conservative lawyers' group: President's advisor addresses the Federalist Society
By Tom Curry National affairs writer MSNBC Updated: 4:58 a.m. ET Nov. 11, 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9982264/
WASHINGTON - Emerging from weeks of political hibernation, President Bush's longtime advisor Karl Rove told the right-wing Federalist Society that rulings by liberal judges will “provoke a strong counter-reaction” through laws or constitutional amendments to limit the judiciary. He also denounced last year’s U.S. Supreme Court ruling Roper v. Simmons in which five justices ruled that convicted murderers under the age of 18 could not be put to death. Rove noted that 20 states allowed capital punishment for those under 18 and argued that the high court was depriving those states of the right to self-government.

3. Well, here's another one on the right heard from. Again, I can't say we agree on things, but at least he's been an honest critic of his own party. Is a portion of the right, and a portion of the left, meeting towards the center? Probably not if our extremists can help it. Perhaps it's leaving others quite alone. I think these are words many Americans, Republican and Democrat, are thinking right now. We may or may not all share the same concern for the political health of the folks that got us into this. (DL)

The crisis of the GOP by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted: November 10, 2005 1:00 a.m. Eastern http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47344
With the rout of the Schwarzenegger initiatives, Democratic victories in New Jersey and Virginia, and Bush's free-fall in national polls on his job performance, credibility and character, the Republican Party is in imminent peril of losing the country.

Indeed, since 9-11, the party has indulged in willful self-delusion that it has become America's Party. The Bush triumph in 2004, talking heads brayed, settled the matter: Red State America has triumphed over Blue State America. The future belongs to us.

This was always hyperbole. Where Nixon and Reagan rolled up 49-state landslides in re-election runs, Bush won 31 states, losing every state north of the Potomac and east of Ohio, two of the three great industrial states of the Midwest, Michigan and Illinois, and was skunked on the Pacific rim. Had Kerry hammered him on trade and lost jobs in Ohio, Bush would be a one-term president.

What killed the first Bush presidency and is ruining the second is the abandonment of Reaganism and embrace of the twin heresies of neoconservatism and Big Government Conservatism, as preached by the ideologues at the Weekly Standard and the Wall Street Journal. Bill Clinton is starting to look like Barry Goldwater.

Both Bushes abandoned the economic patriotism that had put America and Americans first. Working America and the middle class have been sacrificed on the high altar of this Moloch of Republican Free Trade. And how have our Chinese brethren reciprocated our magnanimity? The late editorial-page editor of the Journal, Robert Bartley, once said, "The nation-state is finished." He and his progeny have surely done their best to bring that about.

Thus, in March 2003, Bush, in perhaps the greatest strategic blunder in U.S. history, invaded an Arab nation that had not attacked us, did not want war with us and did not threaten us – to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.

Result: Shia and Kurds have been liberated from Saddam, but Iran has a new ally in southern Iraq, Osama has a new base camp in the Sunni Triangle, the Arab and Islamic world has been radicalized against the United States, and copy-cat killers of al-Qaida have been targeting our remaining allies in Europe and the Middle East: Spain, Britain, Egypt and Jordan. And, lest we forget, 2,055 Americans are dead and Walter Reed is filling up.

Democratic imperialism is still imperialism. To Islamic peoples, whether the Crusaders come in the name of God or in the name of democracy, they are still Crusaders.

Bush sad about Brazilians killed

SO... one of Bush's aides came up to him and said "Sir. two Brazilians were killed in the protests during your visit."

Bush said, "That's a shame. I should mention that in a press conference, shouldn't I?"

The aide said, "That's a good idea. I'll call a press conference."

Just before going onstage, Bush turned to his aide and said, "Let me get the facts straight first.... How many are in a Brazilian?"

One plus one = millions

Greetings From Pennsylvania
out of the Blue ... state

I know you're all aware of this , but, As I said.. one plus one = millions for Rumsfeld.
(1) Rumsfeld - former CEO of Gilead (maker of Tamiflu), and major shareholder still in Gilead.+ (1) Bush talks of bird flu scare, says today that Tamiflu to be purchased for bird flu (for $510 million) = (3) A million (or more) in profit for Rumsfeld, and other well-connected politicians. We pay, or the states do. The Feds aren't. Oh, and it's said in some areas that it's not proven to work, either. Articles on both topics, or click on the links and don't read if you want to read them later... Let's hope the press examines it all further to see what works, who SHOULD pay, and who should or should NOT profit. Let's at least see some facts on whether Tamiflu will work or not. (DL)

(1) U.S. Flu Strategy Leans on States By KEVIN FREKING, AP, Nov. 4, 2005 (long after the article that follows this one)
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20051103100209990008
WASHINGTON (AP) - The nation's response to a flu pandemic could not succeed without a strong effort by state and local governments because the battle might have to be fought on "5,000 fronts," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt says.
Democrats in the House and Senate, however, question whether the states have the financial resources to engage in such a fight.

In particular, lawmakers take issue with the Bush administration's plans for the purchase of certain medicines. The plan says states would pay about $510 million for enough anti-flu drugs such as Tamiflu and Relenza, which can reduce the severity of the illness, to treat 31 million The federal government would give states an incentive to make those purchases by providing a 25 percent match, or $170 million.

Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said the proposal amounted to an unfunded mandate on the states and might mean that some states would not be able to buy enough drugs."This is a national emergency. I believe very strongly it should not depend upon where you live as to what sort of protection you get," Lowey told Leavitt at a House hearing Wednesday.
Lawmakers also grilled Leavitt on why it took the administration more than a year to issue its plan. "Could we have acted sooner to avoid the situation we are in now, in effect running for cover?" said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

(2) Plus...the second (1) that, with our first (1) makes Rumsfeld an extra million or more. And now... a few other interesting articles on who makes money on Tamiflu...

Rumsfeld's growing stake in TamifluDefense Secretary, ex-chairman of flu treatment rights holder, sees portfolio value growing.October 31, 2005: 10:55 AM EST By Nelson D. Schwartz, Fortune senior writer NEW YORK (Fortune) - http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/?source=aol_quote
The prospect of a bird flu outbreak may be panicking people around the globe, but it's proving to be very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences, the California biotech company that owns the rights to Tamiflu, the influenza remedy that's now the most-sought after drug in the world.
Rumsfeld served as Gilead (Research)'s chairman from 1997 until he joined the Bush administration in 2001, and he still holds a Gilead stake valued at between $5 million and $25 million, according to federal financial disclosures filed by Rumsfeld.
The forms don't reveal the exact number of shares Rumsfeld owns, but in the past six months fears of a pandemic and the ensuing scramble for Tamiflu have sent Gilead's stock from $35 to $47. That's made the Pentagon chief, already one of the wealthiest members of the Bush cabinet, at least $1 million richer. Former Secretary of State George Shultz, who is on Gilead's board, has sold more than $7 million worth of Gilead since the beginning of 2005. Another board member is the wife of former California Gov. Pete Wilson. "I don't know of any biotech company that's so politically well-connected," says analyst Andrew McDonald of Think Equity Partners in San Francisco.

What's more, the federal government is emerging as one of the world's biggest customers for Tamiflu. In July, the Pentagon ordered $58 million worth of the treatment for U.S. troops around the world, and Congress is considering a multi-billion dollar purchase. Roche expects 2005 sales for Tamiflu to be about $1 billion, compared with $258 million in 2004. (Guess what? It happened, as in read the first article on Bush's plan, where YOUR state pays. DL)

(3) TAMIFLU GILEAD CHAIR WAS ... RUMMY Friday, October 21, 2005 - FreeMarketNews.com http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1443NEWS AND ANALYSISReaders can be helpful, and one just wrote in to inform us of a link that we had never imagined - Donald Rumsfeld, until he resigned and joined the Bush Administration, was the chairman of something called Gilead which just happened to make something called Tamiflu.
Now anyone who hasn't been on Mars for the last month or two, knows that there were only two things that were going to stop the human version of bird flu. One was a bird flu vaccine (which probably would work better if you were a bird) and the other was something called Tamiflu. Yes, that Tamiflu. In such short supply that the hundreds of millions of orders that have been pouring into Gilead probably won't be filled for another 12 months or so. But everyone has got to have it because somehow or other it became established that Tamiflu really worked. This was the party line, anyway, for about a week, until word began trickling back in that maybe Tamiflu didn't work. In fact, the word on Tamiflu has always been positive at first and then eventually negative. And that brings us to today. Bird flu still rages and, yes, it may mutate into human flu at some point and cause death, many deaths, or fewer deaths, no one knows. It may indeed sweep around the world. But of more worry immediately were moves of civil authorities to float trial balloons about mandatory vaccination and to start sending vials of superflu bugs around the world in the name of science.

(4) Stock reports tell the facts only.. and here's the latest, below. I wonder if the President's announcement today will help more? You see that spike in profits? Your state is supposed to pay the bill for that, according to Bush. (DL)

Morningstar Alert
GILD
11-03-05 09:44 PMNew 52-week highThe price of this stock reached a new 52-week high of $51.58 on an intraday basis. If this stock is a recent initial public offering, this high was made within a price history that is less than 52 weeks. For details, go to
http://quote.morningstar.com/switch.html?hsection=Quicktakes&ticker=GILD