funwithtreason

Cat Stevens saga 'a spelling error' From correspondents in New York 26sep04 CAT Stevens was deported from the United States because of a spelling error, with American officials confusing the former pop star with a man with a similar name on a "no-fly" list, Time magazine reported today. Stevens, 57, gave up his successful pop career in the late 1970s, taking the name Yusuf Islam and converting to Islam. He had been travelling from London to Washington on Tuesday when his flight was diverted to Bangor, Maine, where he was detained on "national security grounds". He was then put on a plane back to London, according to US security officials. Asa Hutchinson, the US Department of Homeland Security's under secretary for border and transportation security, refused to specify the allegations against him. Time, in its online edition, quoted aviation sources with access to the "no-fly" list as saying there was no entry on the list under the name Yusuf Islam, but there was a Youssouf Islam listed. Because Islam's name was spelled Yusuf on his passport, said the sources, he was allowed to board a plane in London bound for the United States. Islam said on Friday he had begun legal action against US authorities. "We have now initiated a legal process to try to find out exactly what is going on, and to take all necessary steps to undo the very serious, and wholly unfounded, injustice which I have suffered," he said. "The amazing thing is that I was not given, and have still not been given, any explanation whatsoever as to what it is I am accused of, or why I am now deemed an apparent security threat - let alone given an opportunity to respond to these allegations. "I was simply told that the order had come from on high." This proves Cat Stevens has no terrorist connections, proves his name was confused with another person who HAS terrorist ties and proves there was no entry on the list under the name Yusuf Islam, but there was a Youssouf Islam listed. Which proves mistaken identity. Looks like Cat Stevens has a legitimate case against the US. They're going to have to remove his name off the no fly list or be ordered to by a justice as he is filing a lawsuit against the US. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3686992.stm

http://www.juancole.com/2004_09_01_juancole_archive.html#109582366638394688 President Bush said Tuesday that the Iraqis are refuting the pessimists and implied that things are improving in that country. What would America look like if it were in Iraq's current situation? The population of the US is over 11 times that of Iraq, so a lot of statistics would have to be multiplied by that number. Thus, violence killed 300 Iraqis last week, the equivalent proportionately of 3,300 Americans. What if 3,300 Americans had died in car bombings, grenade and rocket attacks, machine gun spray, and aerial bombardment in the last week? That is a number greater than the deaths on September 11, and if America were Iraq, it would be an ongoing, weekly or monthly toll. And what if those deaths occurred all over the country, including in the capital of Washington, DC, but mainly above the Mason Dixon line, in Boston, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, and San Francisco? What if the grounds of the White House and the government buildings near the Mall were constantly taking mortar fire? What if almost nobody in the State Department at Foggy Bottom, the White House, or the Pentagon dared venture out of their buildings, and considered it dangerous to go over to Crystal City or Alexandria? What if all the reporters for all the major television and print media were trapped in five-star hotels in Washington, DC and New York, unable to move more than a few blocks safely, and dependent on stringers to know what was happening in Oklahoma City and St. Louis? What if the only time they ventured into the Midwest was if they could be embedded in Army or National Guard units? There are estimated to be some 25,000 guerrillas in Iraq engaged in concerted acts of violence. What if there were private armies totalling 275,000 men, armed with machine guns, assault rifles (legal again!), rocket-propelled grenades, and mortar launchers, hiding out in dangerous urban areas of cities all over the country? What if they completely controlled Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Salt Lake City, Las Vegas, Denver and Omaha, such that local police and Federal troops could not go into those cities? What if, during the past year, the Secretary of State (Aqilah Hashemi), the President (Izzedine Salim), and the Attorney General (Muhammad Baqir al-Hakim) had all been assassinated? What if all the cities in the US were wracked by a crime wave, with thousands of murders, kidnappings, burglaries, and carjackings in every major city every year? What if the Air Force routinely (I mean daily or weekly) bombed Billings, Montana, Flint, Michigan, Watts in Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Anacostia in Washington, DC, and other urban areas, attempting to target "safe houses" of "criminal gangs", but inevitably killing a lot of children and little old ladies? What if, from time to time, the US Army besieged Virginia Beach, killing hundreds of armed members of the Christian Soldiers? What if entire platoons of the Christian Soldiers militia holed up in Arlington National Cemetery, and were bombarded by US Air Force warplanes daily, destroying thousands of graves and even pulverizing the Vietnam Memorial over on the Mall? What if the National Council of Churches had to call for a popular march of thousands of believers to converge on the National Cathedral to stop the US Army from demolishing it to get at a rogue band of the Timothy McVeigh Memorial Brigades? What if there were virtually no commercial air traffic in the country? What if many roads were highly dangerous, especially Interstate 95 from Richmond to Washington, DC, and I-95 and I-91 up to Boston? If you got on I-95 anywhere along that over 500-mile stretch, you would risk being carjacked, kidnapped, or having your car sprayed with machine gun fire. What if no one had electricity for much more than 10 hours a day, and often less? What if it went off at unpredictable times, causing factories to grind to a halt and air conditioning to fail in the middle of the summer in Houston and Miami? What if the Alaska pipeline were bombed and disabled at least monthly? What if unemployment hovered around 40%? What if veterans of militia actions at Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing were brought in to run the government on the theory that you need a tough guy in these times of crisis? What if municipal elections were cancelled and cliques close to the new "president" quietly installed in the statehouses as "governors?" What if several of these governors (especially of Montana and Wyoming) were assassinated soon after taking office or resigned when their children were taken hostage by guerrillas? What if the leader of the European Union maintained that the citizens of the United States are, under these conditions, refuting pessimism and that freedom and democracy are just around the corner?

So aiding terrorist nations as well as aiding countries who tortore their own people whilst religiously persecuting them is diplomacy? If that is deplomacy then what isn't?

President Bush earlier this week attacked his opponent, saying "It's hard to imagine a candidate running for President prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040920-17.html Yet, it is President Bush who regularly declares his personal friendship and gratitude to some of the world's most oppressive dictators, often wining and dining them at his ranch in Texas. In June of 2004, Bush referred to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia as "my friend,"... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040610-36.html ...even though the Saudi Arabian government has been investigated for its financial ties to the 9/11 terrorists... http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml ...and is listed by the U.S. State Department as one of the world's most oppressive regimes on the planet. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27937.htm In April, he referred to the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak as "my friend" and welcomed him to the Crawford ranch by saying "I always look forward to visiting with him." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040412-3.html Bush gave this praise to a dictator, even though Human Rights Watch notes that government "torture in Egypt is widespread and systemic"... http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/mena/egypt-bck-1001.htm ...and the State Department says Mubarak has passed a Constitution in which the electorate is barred from being "presented with a choice among competing presidential candidates." http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27926.htm In 2002, it was Bush who said "I want to welcome the President of China to our ranch, and to Texas." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021025.html Bush was inviting into his home a dictator who, according to the U.S. State Department, presides over a government that regularly engages in the "arbitrary or unlawful" murder of its own citizens, kidnappings of political dissidents, and repression of religious minorities. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27768.htm Only one word describes him in this factual scenario.... HYPOCRITE!

Your mom said. mmmmmmmmmph, mmmmmmph mmmmmmmmmmmph.. (sorry, her mouth is full)... She says "it's time to rotate the tires on the house again".

[sarcasm]I think it's more like the US classified his songs of peace as a weapon of mass destruction. Didn't you know the song "peace train" was responsible for 9/11 as well as the attack on a Madrid train 3 years later? It inspired Al Qaeda to do both .[/sarcasm] And now the news... Singer Cat Stevens Has No Terrorist Ties Singer Formerly Known As Cat Stevens to Be Deported; Brother Says He Has No Terrorist Ties http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20040922_1334.html The Associated Press WASHINGTON Sept. 22, 2004 — Singer Cat Stevens, taken off a London-to-Washington flight because his name showed up on a government "no-fly" list, has no ties to suspected terrorists, his brother said Wednesday. Stevens, who converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Islam more than a quarter-century ago, recently made the watch list after U.S. authorities received information from multiple sources indicating he may have associations with potential terrorists, a government official said. United Airlines Flight 919 was diverted to Bangor, Maine, on Tuesday afternoon after U.S. officials who checked the passenger list learned that the singer was aboard. Federal agents met the plane and interviewed Islam. Islam's brother and business manager, David Gordon, said in a telephone interview that he could guarantee that Islam does not associate with possible terrorists. "It's not true," Gordon said. "His only work, his only mind-set, is humanitarian causes. He just wants to be an ambassador for peace." Gordon, who said he spoke by phone to Islam on Wednesday, said his brother was in good humor. "He's fine. It's an unfortunate incident, but on the other hand, people are worried and they want to feel secure when they're flying," Gordon said. Airlines have access to watch lists and are supposed to screen passengers to make sure those deemed direct threats to aviation do not board planes. The official said it was unclear why United Airlines personnel allowed Islam to get on the flight in London. A call to the airline was not immediately returned. Homeland Security Department spokesman Dennis Murphy said Islam was "denied admission to the United States on national security grounds" and was expected to be sent back to London on Wednesday. A second government official, who also spoke on condition of anonymity, said U.S. authorities think donations from Islam may have ended up helping to fund blind sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, and Hamas, a Palestinian militant group considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel. *The buzzword here is "think", people.* In July 2000, Islam was deported hours after arriving in Jerusalem. A local paper reported then that the government claimed he had delivered tens of thousands of dollars to Hamas during a visit in 1988. Islam denied ever knowingly supporting Islamic terrorists. Islam has made a number of trips to the United States in recent years, including one in May for a charity event and to promote a DVD of his 1976 MajiKat tour. He donated half the royalties from his most recent boxed set to the Sept. 11 Fund to help victims of the attacks. *Would a terrorist ever do this?* Islam, who was born Stephen Georgiou, took Cat Stevens as a stage name and had a string of hits in the 1960s and '70s, including "Wild World" and "Morning Has Broken." Last year he released two songs, including a re-recording of his '70s hit "Peace Train," to express his opposition to the U.S.-led war in Iraq. He abandoned his music career in the late 1970s and changed his name after being persuaded by orthodox Muslim teachers that his lifestyle was forbidden by Islamic law. He later became a teacher and an advocate for his religion, founding a Muslim school in London in 1983. Islam founded Islamia Primary school in London in 1983. In 1998, it became the first Muslim school in Britain to receive government support, on the same basis as Christian and other sectarian schools. Islam drew some negative attention in the late 1980s when he supported the Ayatollah Khomeini's death sentence against Salman Rushdie, author of "The Satanic Verses." Gordon denied that he had called for Rushdie's death. "They completely misunderstood what he said," he said. Recently, Islam has criticized terrorist acts, including the Sept. 11 attacks and the school seizure in Beslan, Russia, earlier this month that left more than 300 dead, nearly half of them children. In a statement on his Web site, he wrote, "Crimes against innocent bystanders taken hostage in any circumstance have no foundation whatsoever in the life of Islam and the model example of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him." From what I see, he was deported simply because he is Islamic. Nothing more. The government is acting racially as well as religiously overzealous.

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040914-23.html http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p01s04-woiq.html But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein. As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/ Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of U.S. casualties. This past Monday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an American civilian in Baghdad. http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6284605 And Tuesday another American gets beheaded by Zarqawi's terrorist group. http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aq2zD2ykdfwg&refer=top_world_news How can we trust a president who strikes down every chance to capture Zarqawi when every chance he gets he simply refuses the opportunity? If he had the balls to get this man, people like Armstrong and Hensley would not have been beheaded. Bush's neglect only aids terrorists. Not stop them. Bush is stupid.

Soldiers in Iraq get to see F9/11. Anti Bush sentiment grows among soldiers from the September 21, 2004 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0921/p02s02-usmi.html A strident minority: anti-Bush US troops in Iraq Though military personnel lean conservative, some vocally support Kerry - or at least a strategy for swift withdrawal. By Ann Scott Tyson | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON - Inside dusty, barricaded camps around Iraq, groups of American troops in between missions are gathering around screens to view an unlikely choice from the US box office: "Fahrenheit 9-11," Michael Moore's controversial documentary attacking the commander-in-chief. "Everyone's watching it," says a Marine corporal at an outpost in Ramadi that is mortared by insurgents daily. "It's shaping a lot of people's image of Bush." The film's prevalence is one sign of a discernible countercurrent among US troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war. Conventional wisdom holds that the troops are staunchly pro-Bush, and many are. But bitterness over long, dangerous deployments is producing, at a minimum, pockets of support for Democratic candidate Sen. John Kerry, in part because he's seen as likely to withdraw American forces from Iraq more quickly. "[For] 9 out of 10 of the people I talk to, it wouldn't matter who ran against Bush - they'd vote for them," said a US soldier in the southern city of Najaf, seeking out a reporter to make his views known. "People are so fed up with Iraq, and fed up with Bush." With only three weeks until an Oct. 11 deadline set for hundreds of thousands of US troops abroad to mail in absentee ballots, this segment of the military vote is important - symbolically, as a reflection on Bush as a wartime commander, and politically, as absentee ballots could end up tipping the balance in closely contested states. It is difficult to gauge the extent of disaffection with Bush, which emerged in interviews in June and July with ground forces in central, northern, and southern Iraq. No scientific polls exist on the political leanings of currently deployed troops, military experts and officials say. To be sure, broader surveys of US military personnel and their spouses in recent years indicate they are more likely to be conservative and Republican than the US civilian population - but not overwhelmingly so. A Military Times survey last December of 933 subscribers, about 30 percent of whom had deployed for the Iraq war, found that 56 percent considered themselves Republican - about the same percentage who approved of Bush's handling of Iraq. Half of those responding were officers, who as a group tend to be more conservative than their enlisted counterparts. Among officers, who represent roughly 15 percent of today's 1.4 million active duty military personnel, there are about eight Republicans for every Democrat, according to a 1999 survey by Duke University political scientist Peter Feaver. Enlisted personnel, however - a disproportionate number of whom are minorities, a population that tends to lean Democratic - are more evenly split. Professor Feaver estimates that about one third of enlisted troops are Republicans, one third Democrats, and the rest independents, with the latter group growing. Pockets of ambivalence "The military continues to be a Bush stronghold, but it's not a stranglehold," Feaver says. Three factors make the military vote more in play for Democrats this year than in 2000, he says: the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tense relationship with the Army, and Bush's limited ability as an incumbent to make sweeping promises akin to Senator Kerry's pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched force. "The military as a whole supports the Iraq war," Mr. Feaver says, noting a historical tendency of troops to back the commander in chief in wartime. "But you can go across the military and find pockets where they are more ambivalent," he says, especially among the National Guard and Reserve. "The war has not gone as swimmingly as they thought, and that has caused disaffection. Whether representing pockets of opposition to Bush or something bigger, soldiers and marines on Iraq's front lines can be impassioned in their criticism. One Marine officer in Ramadi who had lost several men said he was thinking about throwing his medals over the White House wall. "Nobody I know wants Bush," says an enlisted soldier in Najaf, adding, "This whole war was based on lies." Like several others interviewed, his animosity centered on a belief that the war lacked a clear purpose even as it took a tremendous toll on US troops, many of whom are in Iraq involuntarily under "stop loss" orders that keep them in the service for months beyond their scheduled exit in order to keep units together during deployments. "There's no clear definition of why we came here," says Army Spc. Nathan Swink, of Quincy, Ill. "First they said they have WMD and nuclear weapons, then it was to get Saddam Hussein out of office, and then to rebuild Iraq. I want to fight for my nation and for my family, to protect the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, not to protect Iraqi civilians or deal with Sadr's militia," he said. Specialist Swink, who comes from a family of both Democrats and Republicans, plans to vote for Kerry. "Kerry protested the war in Vietnam. He is the one to end this stuff, to lead to our exit of Iraq," he said. 'We shouldn't be here' Other US troops expressed feelings of guilt over killing Iraqis in a war they believe is unjust. "We shouldn't be here," said one Marine infantryman bluntly. "There was no reason for invading this country in the first place. We just came here and [angered people] and killed a lot of innocent people," said the marine, who has seen regular combat in Ramadi. "I don't enjoy killing women and children, it's not my thing." As with his comrades, the marine accepted some of the most controversial claims of "Fahrenheit 9/11," which critics have called biased. "Bush didn't want to attack [Osama] Bin Laden because he was doing business with Bin Laden's family," he said. Another marine, Sgt. Christopher Wallace of Pataskala, Ohio, agreed that the film was making an impression on troops. "Marines nowadays want to know stuff. They want to be informed, because we'll be voting out here soon," he said. " 'Fahrenheit 9/11' opened our eyes to things we hadn't seen before." But, he added after a pause, "We still have full faith and confidence in our commander-in-chief. And if John Kerry is elected, he will be our commander in chief." Getting out the military vote No matter whom they choose for president, US troops in even the most remote bases in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere overseas are more likely than in 2000 to have an opportunity to vote - and have their votes counted - thanks to a major push by the Pentagon to speed and postmark their ballots. The Pentagon is now expediting ballots for all 1.4 million active-duty military personnel and their 1.3 million voting-age dependents, as well as 3.7 million US civilians living abroad. "We wrote out a plan of attack on how we are going to address these issues this election year," says Maj. Lonnie Hammack, the lead postal officer for US Central Command, an area covering the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa, where more than 225,000 troops and Defense Department personnel serve. The military has added manpower, flights, and postmark-validating equipment, and given priority to moving ballots - by Humvee or helicopter if necessary - even to far-flung outposts such as those on the Syrian and Pakistani border and Djibouti. Meanwhile, voting-assistance officers in every military unit are remind- ing troops to vote, as are posters, e-mails, and newspaper and television announcements. Voting booths are also set up at deployment centers in the United States. "We've had almost 100 percent contact," says Col. Darrell Jones, director of manpower and personnel for Central Command, and 200,000 federal postcard ballot applications have been shipped. "We encourage our people to vote, not for a certain candidate, but to exercise that right," he said, noting that was especially important as the US military is "out there promoting fledgling democracy in these regions." Many of the younger troops may be voting for the first time, he added.

Having an IQ of 140 does not prove intelligence, in fact any IQ doesn't prove such. Only common sense does.

Igloo... I don't know if you read it yet but I posted a statement by Dan Rather and within the link posted there is an interview on video I think you should watch. CBS also agreed to do an internal investigation of which Dan Rather welcomed. He should've researched more for the integrety of the Bush memos for reliability before prematurely reporting it. That was a huge mistake in Rather's part. With that said, he should resign but to be assured he will go in obscurity. I don't want to make you scroll back up on this thread so I'm going to pass you the link in here... http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml

(CBS) Below is the text of CBS News Anchor Dan Rather's statement on the documents purportedly written by President Bush's National Guard commander: Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a "60 Minutes Wednesday" story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question-and their source-vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome. Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where-if I knew then what I know now-I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question. But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism. Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml

Holy shit!! This kid's whacked. And how about his dad??

STATEMENT FROM THE NEWS DIVISION MAN WHO GAVE CBS NEWS DISPUTED DOCUMENTS DESCRIBES HOW HE OBTAINED THEM; IN TELEVISION INTERVIEW, HE ADMITS HE DELIBERATELY MISLED CBS NEWS PRODUCER CBS NEWS ACKNOWLEDGES THAT, BASED ON SUBSEQUENT REPORTING ON QUESTIONS ABOUT DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT PROVE THEY ARE AUTHENTIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN USED IN THE "60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY" REPORT. CBS NEWS AND CBS MANAGEMENT ARE COMMISSIONING AN INDEPENDENT REVIEW http://kutv.com/topstories/local_story_264122847.html

Uncovered: The Whole Truth About The Iraq War Robert Greenwald - 87 minutes: Windows Media An impressive roster of experts is assembled to provide a generally withering commentary on the quality of evidence and possible motivations of the Neo-conservatives who provided the momentum and muscle behind America's venture into preemptive war. Among them are veteran CIA analysts and operatives, military officers, diplomats, politicians, arms inspectors, and U.S. and British government officials. The fig leaf of the possibility of an honest mistake on the matter of WMDs is stripped away; what is left is the stark and disturbing anatomy of deliberate deceit. Windows Media: Please wait a moment for the video to load then press play http://informationclearinghouse.info/article6423.htm This documentary is played in its' entirety and very well detailed.

Even though you wish they could do the same to him in the United States of Duh??

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/ny-uspoll19,0,5524590.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

U.S. Weapons Inspector: Iraq Had No WMD U.S. Weapons Inspector to Conclude Iraq Had No WMD, Only Idle Programs Saddam Hoped to Revive http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040917_156.html The Associated Press WASHINGTON Sept. 17, 2004 — Fallen Iraqi President Saddam Hussein did not have stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, but left signs that he had idle programs he someday hoped to revive, the top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq concludes in a draft report due out soon. According to people familiar with the 1,500-page report, the head of the Iraq Survey Group, Charles Duelfer, will find that Saddam was importing banned materials, working on unmanned aerial vehicles in violation of U.N. agreements and maintaining a dual-use industrial sector that could produce weapons. Duelfer also says Iraq only had small research and development programs for chemical and biological weapons. As Duelfer puts the finishing touches on his report, he concludes Saddam had intentions of restarting weapons programs at some point, after suspicion and inspections from the international community waned. After a year and a half in Iraq, however, the United States has found no weapons of mass destruction its chief argument for going to war and overthrowing the regime. An intelligence official said Duelfer could wrap up the report as soon as this month, but noted it may take time to declassify it. Those who discussed the report inside and outside the government did so Thursday on the condition of anonymity because it contains classified material and is not yet completed. If the report is released publicly before the Nov. 2 elections, Democrats are likely to seize on the document as another opportunity to criticize the Bush administration's leading argument for war in Iraq and the deteriorating security situation there. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has criticized the president's handling of the war, but also has said he still would have voted to authorize the invasion even if he had known no weapons of mass destruction would be found there. Duelfer's report is expected to be similar to findings reported by his predecessor, David Kay, who presented an interim report to Congress in October. Kay left the post in January, saying, "We were almost all wrong" about Saddam's weapons programs. The new analysis, however, is expected to fall between the position of the Bush administration before the war portraying Saddam as a grave threat and the declarative statements Kay made after he resigned. It will also add more evidence and flesh out Kay's October findings. At that time, Kay said the Iraq Survey Group had only uncovered limited evidence of secret chemical and biological weapons programs, but he found substantial evidence of an Iraqi push to boost the range of its ballistic missiles beyond prohibited ranges. He also said there was almost no sign that a significant nuclear weapons project was under way. Duelfer's report doesn't reach firm conclusions in all areas. For instance, U.S. officials are still investigating whether Saddam's fallen regime may have sent chemical weapons equipment and several billion dollars over the border to Syria. That has not been confirmed, but remains an area of interest to the U.S. government. The Duelfer report will come months after the Senate Intelligence Committee released a scathing assessment of the prewar intelligence on Iraq. After a yearlong inquiry, the Republican-led committee said in July the CIA kept key information from its own and other agencies' analysts, engaged in "group think" by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and allowed President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell to make false statements. The Iraq Survey Group has been working since the summer of 2003 to find Saddam's weapons and better understand his prohibited programs. More than a thousand civilian and military weapons specialists, translators and other experts have been devoted to the effort. More sources... http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29996-2004Sep17.html

Vice President Cheney has regularly attacked the national security credentials of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), calling him weak on terrorism. But according to a new report, it was Cheney who actually did business with terrorist countries and traveled abroad to attack America's counter-terrorism efforts in the 1990s. As The American Prospect documents, Cheney oversaw Halliburton's effort to do business with Iraq and Iran in the 1990s, despite American sanctions against those countries. During his time as CEO, he oversaw Halliburton's $73 million worth of business with Saddam Hussein. http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498 This, despite his claim that he had imposed a "firm policy"... http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/iraq1/oilforfood/2001/0627chen.htm ...of not doing business with Iraq. Similarly, details of Halliburton's Iran business during Cheney's tenure was so egregious, it is being investigated by authorities today. http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/07/20/halliburton.reut/ Halliburton today admits one of its subsidiaries still "performs between $30 [million] and $40 million annually in oilfield service work in Iran." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A110-2004Jul20.html http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=5739 On top of evading U.S. sanctions laws against terrorist countries, Cheney actually attacked the U.S. government in a series of trips abroad, demanding sanctions be lifted on terrorist countries so he could do business with them. In trips to Malaysia and Canada, for instance, he insisted the Clinton administration lift sanctions on Iran, despite that country being listed by the U.S. State Department as a state-sponsor of terrorism. http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/2000/2441.htm

Campaigning in Iowa on Sept. 7, Vice President Dick Cheney claimed that, if John Kerry was elected, America would be hit by a devastating terrorist attack. Cheney said, "It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/campaign/08bush.html?ex=1095739200&en=e3802b31fbf7c512&ei=5070 Yesterday, Cheney - in a self-described effort to "clean up" the controversy over his remarks in Iowa - told the Cincinnati Enquirer, "I did not say if Kerry is elected, we will be hit by a terrorist attack. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/cheney.kerry.ap/index.html As Cheney's original statement makes clear, the Republicans have consciously adopted a strategy of using Americans' justifiable fear of a future terrorist attack as a political tool. For all the details, read the cover article, "Vote for Bush or Die," in this week's edition of The Nation at www.thenation.com. http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20040927&s=legum