Marc Perkel Rantz

GOP Strategy Papers left at Starbucks

Apparently someone in the White House left their Political Script on 9-11 behind at Starbucks this morning.

Now I ask you - if a Clinton official left something like this on the table at Starbucks - would you not be demanding a special prosecutor? That's the difference between how Clinton is covered and how Bush is covered.

Clinton should Testify

Letter to the Editor

The issue has been raised about what Clinton did or didn't do to fight terrorism. I say - let's call Clinton to testify to the 9-11 commission - in public - and under oath. In the interest of getting to the bottom of the problem so that 9-11 never happens again - I think Clinton could shed important light on the topic and can address issues that have been raised.

Additionally - when Bush testifies it should also be in public and under oath. The fact that he won't take the oath makes it look like he intends to be less that fully truthful. I say - let's get this all out in the open.

National Security

Letter to the Editor

If the Bush administration went after al Qaeda the way Bush is going after Richard Clarke for saying that Clinton did a better job on terrorism than Bush did, there wouldn't be a terrorist threat to worry about.

Condi Won't Talk

Letter to the Editor

I find it amazing that Condoleezza Rice won't testify to the 9-11 commission referencing "constitutional issues " and "separation of powers". Seems I don't remember these issues being a problem back when the Republicans were dragging President Clinton and everyone in his administration before congressional panels. The way the Bush administration is hiding things make one wonder if they have something to hide? The more Ms. Rice says she won't talk - the more interested I am in hearing what she's not saying.

US Vetos Condemnation of Assassination

Letter to the Editor

Its an interesting dilemma when it comes to condemning assassinating terrorists. Sort of a no win situation. Certainly someone who terrorizes can't complain when the victims strike back. But in a culture of war and mutual terrorism to we condone or condemn such acts? What is the right way to end the cycle of violence? Every time you kill a terrorist - it causes them to breed. But to not kill them inspires them as well. And there are those who use such violence for political posturing and personal profit. If Bush is going to posture as the "War President" then he's going to need a lot of war to divert attention away from a collapsing economy.

America has always been the voice of peace - not war. We are making too many enemies in the world and its time we changed direction and start making friends. We have a lot of work to do to rid the world of terrorism and we can no longer afford to support a political opportunist who feeds on war. What we need is a "Peace President" - not a "War President". A president who has good judgment and can figure out who the enemy is.

Islam Sucks

Islam is a religion that totally sucks. I don't see any redeaming value in it at all. This is a religion that is based on violence and holy wars. They are a religion based on murder and terrorism. Any claim to the contrary is bullshit.

The word "assassin" comes from the Muslim faith. They use their children for bombs. The use their wives and sisters for bombs. They murder each other. Women are stoned to death for being raped. They teach their children to die as martyrs in their schools. Many countries don't allow women to read or drive cars. They are slaves and have no rights under the rules of the religion.

They would probably kill me for saying this if they had a chance. And - even though much of what Isreal is doing to Muslims because Jews are also a terrorist religion who freely kill non-jews - I just can't get real excited about defending Palistinians from Jewish oppression when they are a culture of violence themselves.

Widow with child says Bush lied!

Woman and baby lose husband/father in Iraq for nothing!

Wouldn't it piss you off if Bush killed a member of your family? I guess Bush lost 2 votes - the soldier who would have voted for him - the the widow left behind. Here's her story.

CENTER POINT, Texas (Reuters) - At a ceremony on Tuesday marking the one-year anniversary of the Iraqi attack on Pvt. Jessica Lynch's Army unit, the widow of a soldier who died in the fight blasted President Bush (news - web sites) for "lying to America" to justify the Iraq (news - web sites) war.

In bitter comments beside the grave of Army Specialist James Kiehl, widow Jill Kiehl accused Bush of fabricating reasons to launch the invasion that toppled Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"The evidence that's starting to come out now feels like he (Bush) was misleading us," Kiehl said, holding the couple's 10-month-old son Nathaniel, born seven weeks after his father died.

"It's almost as though he had things fixed so it would look like he needed to go to war," she said.

James Kiehl, a 22-year-old computer engineer, was one of 11 members of the 507th Maintenance Company killed when their convoy took a wrong turn at Nassiriya in southern Iraq on March 23, 2003 and were attacked by Iraqi fighters.

Seven others were captured, including Lynch, who was held for nine days before U.S. troops rescued her from a hospital.

Several members of the unit, not including Lynch, attended the ceremony in Center Point, 35 miles northwest of San Antonio.

Jill Kiehl described herself as "bitter" about Bush's decision to declare war on Iraq.

"It's upsetting that he (Bush) would have lied to America to get what he wanted," Kiehl said.

"In a way, it's like he used people. That's how I feel. I think the reasons for going over there were bogus and misleading."

Bush justified the invasion on grounds that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was linked to Al Qaeda, the Islamic extremist group blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. So far, no such weapons have been found and little evidence of Al Qaeda connections has turned up.

Help America get rid of Bush

Letter to the Editor

An open letter to the citizens of the world. Even though Bush is president of the United States Bush affects every person on the planet - and not for the better. Bush has become a global menace and I call on the people of the world to do everything in their power to stop him. I would remind you that Bush has no problem with the idea of influencing other countries and way he sees fit.

I am concerned that if Bush isn't removed from office that we are going to end up in World War III but the end of this decade. We are the most powerful nation on the planet and we are controlled by madmen who were never elected in the first place. A year ago today Bush was talking about using nuclear weapons against Iraq in a war we now know he faked. I would ask you - what will the world look like 4 years from now if Bush isn't removed?

For years America has been the beacon for freedom and democracy and has come to the aid of countries who's liberties were threatened. Today it is us who are coming to you because our liberty is threatened. And - we are a very dangerous nation - to dangerous to be in the wrong hands. Please help us.

--------

Nuclear weapons on the table in a Iraqi war

By Lance Gay

- The Bush administration won't take nuclear weapons off the table as military planners sketch out a war in Iraq and weigh whether Saddam Hussein would likely lash back with chemical or biological weapons if cornered.

In a policy publicly unveiled in December, the White House said America's strategy is to consider all options against any use of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons on American troops or U.S. allies.

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, or forces abroad, and friends and allies," it says.

Critics say the new policy removes nuclear weapons from their special classification, and makes the Pentagon consider wider use of them. The Pentagon has already studied the possibility of using low-yield nuclear bombs to destroy underground bunkers or buried stockpiles or chemical or biological weapons.

In a report sent to Congress last year, the military concluded that new generations of laser-guided conventional weapons were so accurate they could do a better bunker-busting job than nuclear weapons, which aren't as accurate. Furthermore, nuclear explosions could create so much damage they might spread chemical or biological weapons to surrounding civilian areas, and make it more difficult to clean up contaminated areas once the war is over, the military concluded.

Some military analysts say the Bush administration is forcing a shift in how the military would use nuclear weapons.

"There is a greater willingness to entertain a nuclear response," said Michael Levi, deputy director of the strategic security project at the American Federation of Scientists. Levi contended that it's possible under the new doctrine that the U.S. military could respond to a chemical weapons attack with nuclear weapons, although he expects that any decision would hinge on how many people were killed in an Iraqi attack.

Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, and also has used the weapons against Iraqi Kurds. But he did not use them during the Persian Gulf War, or install chemical weapons on Scud missiles he sent to Israel.

Levi said he expects Saddam will use chemical weapons, both against U.S troops and Israel, this time. "It is difficult to deter someone who has nothing to lose," he said.

Francois Boo, an analyst with GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington think tank, said a new war with Iraq would be different because President Bush has repeatedly declared his intention this time to depose Saddam and his regime. U.N. weapons inspectors say they have not yet had an accounting for vast stocks of VX nerve gas, chemicals used to make mustard gas, or stockpiles of anthrax that Iraq has hidden.

"The restrictions are gone, and he will try to create as many casualties as possible," Boo said. Boo said he also expects Saddam would order the use of chemical weapons in a last-ditch effort to blunt an American attack.

But responding to a chemical attack with nuclear weapons "would cause more harm than good," and would send a message to other countries that the nuclear threshold has been lowered. "It's very unlikely we would turn Iraq into a giant glass bowl," he said.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., said using nuclear weapons in Iraq would also cause a backlash against the United States in the Arab world, and be a recruiting tool for terrorists. "Our nation, long a beacon of hope, would overnight be seen as a symbol of death, destruction and aggression."

Press Coverage - Clinton vs. Bush

When Clinton was president the press referred to him as "Mr. Clinton". When the press talks about Bush they refer to him as "The President" or - at least "President Bush". They do this even though Clinton won the election by a landslide and Bush lost the election and was appointed president by the Supreme Court.

You see how the bias works? I remember there was a joke going around at the time - it went like this. "The Pope and Clinton were fishing and the Pope's hat blew off. Clinton walked across the water and fetched the Pope's hat. A reporter saw the even and went off to write the story. The headline - CLINTON CAN'T SWIM!"

Wag the Dog - Bin Laden in 1998

Republicans posing as being "tough on terrorism" seem to have a short memory of what they were saying back when Clinton was going after Bin Laden. Here's what the Republican controlled press (CNN 08/21/1998) was saying about the war on terrorism at the time:

'Wag the Dog' Back In Spotlight

LOS ANGELES (AllPolitics, Aug. 21) -- A president embroiled in a sex scandal in the Oval Office tries to save his presidency by distracting the nation with a made-for-TV war far from American soil in an obscure country.

It's not the latest news out of Washington, but the plot of the movie "Wag the Dog." In the 1997 movie, a shadowy spin doctor played by Robert De Niro recruits a Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman) to invent a war against Albania.

The film came out just before the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke -- and no doubt benefited at the box office and then at the video store from the publicity. Now, the film is all the buzz again because of President Clinton's announcement -- three days after admitting for the first time an inappropriate relationship with Ms. Lewinsky -- that he ordered military strikes in two countries.

From the moment Clinton went on live television Thursday to announce the bombings in Afghanistan and Sudan, "Wag the Dog's" producer-director Barry Levinson and producer Jane Rosenthal were inundated with requests for comment.

"The world's media right now are giving the filmmakers far too much credit for being clairvoyant," said their spokesman, Simon Halls. "The filmmakers put together a movie that was entertainment, and it was well received, but that's what it was: entertainment. Anything that is happening in the world today really has nothing to do with the movie."
A reference point

But the movie is serving as a reference point in the debate over Clinton's motivations.

"Look at the movie 'Wag the Dog.' I think this has all the elements of that movie," Rep. Jim Gibbons said. "Our reaction to the embassy bombings should be based on sound credible evidence, not a knee-jerk reaction to try to direct public attention away from his personal problems."

Massachusetts acting Gov. Paul Cellucci, a Republican and a movie buff, said: "It popped into my mind, but I do hope that that's not the situation and I trust that it isn't."

One of the first questions asked of Defense Secretary William Cohen at a nationally televised Pentagon was how he would respond to people who think the military action "bears a striking resemblance to 'Wag the Dog."'

"The only motivation driving this action today was our absolute obligation to protect the American people from terrorist activities," Cohen said. "That is the sole motivation."

The movie's title comes from an old joke, shown in the opening credits of the film: "Why does a dog wag its tail? Because a dog is smarter than its tail. If the tail were smarter, the tail would wag the dog."

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

It makes you wonder - if the Republican press wasn't harassing Clinton about sex and focused on terrorism - would 9-11 have happened? With reporting like this I have to say that the press is partially responsible of 9-11 and the illegal Iraq war.

Rumsfield wanted to attack Iraq on 09/12/2001

This Yahoo Story tells an amazing tale that should shock all Americans to their core. The day after 9-11 Rumfield wanted to attack Iraq even though he knew Iraq had nothing to do with the attack. Here's the story:

By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld almost immediately urged President Bush (news - web sites) to consider bombing Iraq (news - web sites) after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks on New York and Washington, says a former senior administration counterterrorism aide.

Richard A. Clarke, the White House counterterrorism coordinator at the time, recounts in a forthcoming book details of a meeting the day after the terrorist attacks during which top officials considered the U.S. response. Even then, he said, they were certain that al-Qaida was to blame and there was no hint of Iraqi involvement.

"Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq," Clarke said. "We all said, 'But no, no, al-Qaida is in Afghanistan (news - web sites)."

Clarke, who is expected to testify Tuesday before a federal panel reviewing the attacks, said Rumsfeld complained in the meeting that "there aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq."

This is amazing. From the very next day the Bush administration saw 9-11 as an opportunity to go after Iraq's oil.

A spokesman for Rumsfeld said he couldn't comment immediately.

Clarke makes the assertion in a book, "Against All Enemies," that goes on sale Monday. He told CBS News he believes the administration sought to link Iraq with the attacks because of long-standing interest in overthrowing Saddam Hussein (news - web sites); Clarke appears Sunday night on the network's "60 Minutes" program.

"I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection" between Iraq and the al-Qaida attacks in the United States, Clarke said in an interview segment that CBS broadcast Friday evening. "There's just no connection. There's absolutely no evidence that Iraq was supporting al-Qaida."

Clarke also criticized President Bush for promoting the administration's efforts against terrorism, accusing top Bush advisers of turning a blind eye to terrorism during the first months of Bush's presidency.

The Associated Press first reported in June 2002 that Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions.

What's clear here is that none of this has anything to do with fighting terrorism. In fact - Bush is completely indifferent to terrorism. He uses it merely as a phrase for political posturing. In fact - terrorism works to Bush's political advantage.

The last of those two meetings occurred Sept. 4 as the security council put finishing touches on a proposed national security policy review for the president. That review was finished Sept. 10 and was awaiting Bush's approval when the first plane struck the World Trade Center.

"Frankly, I find it outrageous that the president is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism," Clarke told CBS. "He ignored it. He ignored terrorism for months, when maybe we could have done something."

There have been earlier published accounts of the administration's suspicion during the week after the 2001 attacks that Iraq might have been involved, but none by a direct participant in such senior-level meetings and none that suggested there was a push to attack Iraq so soon afterward.

A discussion among President Bush and Cabinet members at Camp David. Md., on Sept. 16, for example, included remarks about whether it was prudent to attack Iraq after the terror attacks.

Bush told reporter Bob Woodward of The Washington Post that he decided not to heed advice on Iraq by some officials who also had served his father's administration during the first Gulf War (news - web sites).

"One of the things I wasn't going to allow to happen is, that we weren't going to let their previous experience in this theater dictate a rational course for a new war," Bush told Woodward for his 2002 book, "Bush at War." He said discussion later that day "was focused only on Afghanistan."

Clarke retired early in 2003 after 30 years in government service. He was among the longest-serving White House staffers, transferred in 1992 from the State Department to deal with threats from terrorism and narcotics.

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

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

So - who are the bad guys here?

Saddam is a bad guy. But Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism. Saddam is a brutal dictator who murdered tens of thousands of his own people. But his terrorism was local. And - because he was a dictator - he could keep the Muslims and Kurds from killing each other and he kept real terrorists like Bin Laden out. Saddam and Bin Laden are sworn enemies. Now Bin Laden can bring terror to Iraq without Saddam there to stop him.

Yes - Bin Laden is a bad guy. He's the real enemy - the one who actually was behind 9-11. While Bush was going after Iraq's oil under the pretence of fighting terrorism he turned a blind eye to Bin Laden allowing him to build his power. Bush dragged America into an unjust and unprevoked war and alienated both our alies and enemies and strenthened the real terrorists. America is far weaker today and our enemies are stronger. We are losing the war.

The real enemy is Bush. Bush is far more dangerous to the world than Bin Laden and we are on track for World War 3.

Honolulu Star-Bulletin Threatens Me over Letters to the Editor

The Honolulu Star-Bulletin is a newspaper that really sucks. A right wing rag that is now threatening to publish my phone number and encourge people harrass me. Their letter to the editor employee - Nancy Christenson - has gone balistic on me. She doesn't like my letters and rather than being a good journalist - she feels the need to threaten people who don't agree with her narrow point of view.

She called my phone number and hung up. But she wasn't bright enough to block the caller ID which came up 808-529-4700 which is the main phone number for the Honolulu Star-Bulletin

She's also made several attempts to break into my news list by sending email to the list using my email address as her identity - essentially trying to impersonate me and hack into my server to send email to my list of newspapers. And - if she really wanted off my list there is instructions at the bottom of each message to be removed - and the instructions actually work.

Here's some of the email we've exchanged. Her comments are in Red.

> Yes - you can publish my email address with the letter - but not the
> phone number.

If you ever send us your spam again, we will publish your address and
telephone number so you can enjoy being hassled the way you hassle others.

Its not spam - it is a letter to the editor. You are a newspaper aren't you?

I was not engaging you in conversation. You are not one of our readers, and
that is not a letter to the editor. You send us hundreds of these messages
each month, which makes is spam, whether you admit it or not.

Remove the Star-Bulletin from your spam list at once.

I am about to send you another letter. I do not give you permission to publish my phone number. If you publish it - it will be an act of malice. If you don't know what the means you should consult a lawyer.

You are laughably naive. Do whatever you want, little boy -- we'll never see it.

You're pathetic.

Are you really an employee of the Star Bullitin? How is it that you are getting my letters in the first place? (Turns out she really is!)

So - you're calling me up and hanging up on me? Geez - that's really mature of you.

-----------

I'm probably the most published letter to the editor writer in America. I send out a few letters a week to my list of newspapers and papers like USA Today run my letters on a regular basis. So do New York Newsday - Time Magazine - Chicago Sun Times - Kansas City Star - and the Dallas Morning News to name a few.

Normally I ignore threats. I get right wingers threatening me all the time and I just look at it as a sigh of success. If I'm not pissing off Bush supporters then I'm not doing my job. But this is a newspaper threatening to use its power to try to harrass me out of my free speech rights and it pisses me off. In the online world - I control more readers than they do - and one of the things I enjoy doing is exposing corporate and government misbehavior. So - screw you Honolulu Star-Bulletin! You're just another Bush Family Evil Empire publication.

Question for those who support same sex marriage

Letter to the Editor

I have some questions for those who support same sex marriage - should I be allowed to marry my brother? If not - why not?

I would point out that the reason for not marrying my sister is that if we reproduced - then we would likely have birth complications. However - that doesn't apply if I marry my brother because I can't get him pregnant. For that matter - should I be allowed to marry my sister of one or both of us are not capable of reproducing? - If not - why not?

Should I be allowed to marry more than one person? Why limit marriage to only 2 people? Why not 3 or 4? Why have a limit?

Should I be allowed to marry my cat - especially when a cat is much more likely to make a lifelong commitment that a human. In fact - I would bet that if someone compared the average number of years an owner and their pet stay together and a man and wife stay together - the pets would win.

For those who want to move the line on what people should and shouldn't marry - where do you want to move the line to? And - why should the line be there?

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

If it were up to me - I would move the line back the other way to include only couples with children. To me marriage is about families - reproducing - creating new generations. I would therefore - if I were King - grant civil unions to same sex couples and non-reproducing heterosexual couples.

All marriages are really civil unions in the eyes of the state because all states have no fault divorce laws. Therefore the state doesn't really recognize the "relationship" part of a marriage and marriage is really just a bad property agreement where if the relationship fails then two lawyers get to keep your property. From someone who has been chewed by the courts I say to same sex couples - be careful what you ask for - you might get it!

Rumsfield says Capturing Bin Laden wouldn't reduce Terrorism

If this isn't cluelless I don't know what is. We have to start a war with Iraq to go after terrorists - but the guy who is actually doing the terrorism isn't important.

Defense Secretary Says Capturing Bin Laden Would Not Change the Problem of Terrorism

By Robert Burns The Associated Press
Published: Mar 16, 2004

WASHINGTON (AP) - Capturing or killing al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden would not "change the problem" of international terrorism, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Tuesday.

Rumsfeld also raised the possibility that bin Laden was dead.

"The reality is that bin Laden is spending a great deal of his time - if he is alive today - hiding and running and trying to communicate and trying to survive," Rumsfeld said in an interview at the Pentagon with WTN radio in Nashville.

Because of the pressure on bin Laden, al-Qaida and its affiliates have become more decentralized, Rumsfeld said.

"It would be a good thing if he were not there, but it certainly isn't going to change the problem. We're going to have to find the rest of the terrorists and his associates and see that they're put in jail."

The interview was one of a series that Rumsfeld and other senior Pentagon officials gave to radio stations around the country Tuesday as part of a Bush administration public relations offensive marking the one-year anniversary of the start of the war in Iraq. The war began March 19.

In an interview with WPHT radio in Philadelphia, Rumsfeld was asked about a reported remark Monday by the chief of France's armed forces that bin Laden several times had narrowly escaped capture by French troops in Afghanistan.

"We don't know" whether U.S. or coalition troops have come close to bin Laden, Rumsfeld said.

"We haven't caught him," he added. "Close doesn't count. This isn't horseshoes or hand grenades. We're trying to capture or kill this man. We don't even know if he's alive for sure."

The consensus of intelligence analysts is that bin Laden is hiding out in the Afghan-Pakistan border area.

Last weekend the U.S. military command in Afghanistan announced the start of an offensive, dubbed Operation Mountain Storm, aimed at destroying al-Qaida and the Taliban and ultimately finding bin Laden.

Dennis Miller - He just isn't funny anymore

Watching Dennis Miller is sad these days. I remember him back when he used to be funny - before he became Bush's bitch for CNBC. Dennis Miller is so unfunny that the actually have to pay people to be in his audiance and laugh at him. Swear to koresh its true. The studio ran and ad on Craigs List paying people $15 to sit in his audience and laugh and clap for him.

I'm sitting here watching him trying to find something funny and is just isn't happening for me. All I can see is Bush's hand up his butt working his mouth like a puppet. Don't they have any comedy writers for him? The camera pans to the audience where most of them arent clapping - but looking guilty like that might not get the $15 unless they do what the sign tells them to do.

Dennis Millers show is about as real as the Bush economic recovery - or weapons of mass destruction. Hey baby - we're all going to Mars! Dennis Miller used to laugh at people who are like he is now. Now he's one of them. He's a zombie!

Dennis - my pity goes out to you man for being so pathetic. What does it feel like for a comedian to have to hire an audiance and pay people to laugh at you? I mean - isn't that the very definition of LOSER? Good luck reclaiming your soul someday.

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

Here's the ad:

DENNIS MILLER SHOW
Reply to: tickets4tv@yahoo.com
Date: 2004-03-09, 3:27PM PST

Audience work, one hour tape time, cash pay at end of show. Tapes 3/10, 3/11, and 3/12(1:45pm). Reply to tickets4tv@yahoo.com, incude contact number, nationality, and age or age range(submit photo if possible).

Thanks Brandon @ SRO
Compensation: $15 FLAT RATE

Iraq - One year Later

Letter to the Editor

Its been one years since the war started - are we better off today? I think not. Saddam has been replaced by chaos. No weapons were found. We may be stuck over there forever. America is hated and feared by countries that were our allies. Tens of thousands of lives lost for nothing. The deficit is 500 billion a year and climbing. Schools are closing. Gas prices at record highs and Greenspan talks of rationing Social Security.

Clearly America did not win this war. The only one who seems better off today than they were a year ago is Bin Laden because America is far weaker and world opinion has turned against us. I think America needs a regime change.

Bush Can't be Reelected

Letter to the Editor

In spite of administration hopes it will be impossible for Bush to be reelected this year for one simple reason - Bush was never elected in the first place.

US Funding Venezuela Overthrow

Washington has been channelling hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund the political opponents of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez - including those who briefly overthrew the democratically elected leader in a coup two years ago.

Documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act reveal that, in 2002, America paid more than a million dollars to those political groups in what it claims is an ongoing effort to build democracy and "strengthen political parties". Mr Chavez has seized on the information, telling Washington to "get its hands off Venezuela".

The revelation about America's funding of Mr Chavez's opponents comes as the president is facing a possible recall referendum and has been rocked by a series of violent street demonstrations in which at least eight people have died. His opponents, who include politicians, some labour leaders, media executives and former managers at the state oil company, are trying to collect sufficient signatures to force a national vote. The documents reveal that one of the group's organising the collection of signatures - Sumate - received $53,400 (£30,000) from the US last September.

Jeremy Bigwood, a Washington-based freelance journalist who obtained the documents, yesterday told The Independent: "This repeats a pattern started in Nicaragua in the election of 1990 when [the US] spent $20 per voter to get rid of [the Sandinista President Daniel] Ortega. It's done in the name of democracy but it's rather hypocritical. Venezuela does have a democratically elected President who won the popular vote which is not the case with the US."

The funding has been made by the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) a non-profit agency financed entirely by Congress. It distributes $40m (£22m) a year to various groups in what it says is an effort to strengthen democracy.

But critics of the NED say the organisation routinely meddles in other countries' affairs to support groups that believe in free enterprise, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any form. In recent years, the NED has channelled funds to the political opponents of the recently ousted Haitian president Jean-Bertrand Aristide at the same time that Washington was blocking loans to his government.

"It the sort of stuff that used to be done by the CIA," said Mr Bigwood. "I am not particularly interested in Mr Chavez - I am interested in what Washington is doing." In Venezuela, the NED channelled the money to three of its four main operational "wings": the international arms of the Republican and Democratic parties - the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs respectively - and the foreign policy wing of the AFL-CIO union, the American Centre for International Labour Solidarity.

These groups ran workshops, training sessions and provided free advice to three political parties in Venezuela - Democratic Action, Copei and First Justice - the leaderships of which have been at the forefront of efforts to recall Mr Chavez.

Chris Sabatini, the director of the NED for Latin America, claimed the organisation's aim is to promote democracy and "build political space". He told the New York Times that the endowment had been working with civic groups in Venezuela with no political ties and human rights groups.

Relations between the US and Venezuela have not been so tense since April 2002 when Mr Chavez was briefly ousted by opponents who had been supported by the US in the run-up to the coup. At the time, Washington blamed Mr Chavez for his own downfall.

Washington's antipathy towards Mr Chavez is fuelled by his friendship with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his open criticism of Washington-backed free market policies. But Venezuela is also America's fourth largest supplier of oil - something that gives Mr Chavez a degree of leverage but, at the same time, makes him vulnerable to those who would like to see a more pro-American leader in power.

In recent days, Caracas and other cities have been rocked by demonstrations in support of the recall vote. Those intensified after the supposedly independent elections council ruled that government opponents lacked enough total signatures to force the vote. There have also been large and vociferous marches by thousands of supporters of the president who oppose the vote.

Medicare Analyst Muzzeled

WASHINGTON - The nation's top Medicare cost analyst confirmed yesterday that his former boss had ordered him to withhold from lawmakers unfavorable cost estimates about the Medicare prescription-drug bill. He said the estimates exceeded what Congress seemed willing to accept by more than $100 billion.

Richard Foster, chief actuary at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said that in early June he received a written note from Thomas Scully, then the centers' administrator, ordering him to ignore information requests from members of Congress who were drafting the drug bill.

The Inquirer Washington Bureau reported the episode in an exclusive published yesterday, but Foster's comments were his first on the matter. Yesterday, House and Senate leaders called for investigations into the alleged muzzling. Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D., S.D.) said the allegations justified reopening the vote on the drug benefit. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D., Mass.) wrote President Bush demanding to know what cost estimates he used in pushing the new drug benefit, which Congress passed in November and which Bush signed into law Dec. 8.

Scully's note, Foster said, "was a direct order not to respond to certain requests and instead to provide the responses to him and warn about the consequences of insubordination."

The note was Scully's first threat in writing, according to Foster, and came after at least three less formal threats.

They "came in different forms," he said. "Sometimes he would make a comment that 'I think I need another chief actuary,' or, 'If you want to work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange it.' It was that sort of thing." Ways and Means was drafting the bill.

Efforts to reach Scully at his office and home yesterday were unsuccessful. In a recent interview, he denied closing off Foster's lines of communication with Congress. On only one occasion, Scully said, did he block Foster's contacts with lawmakers, in this case Democrats, saying their motives were purely political.

Foster said Scully insisted on a pattern of withholding of information.

"Estimates that were supportive of the legislation were generally released, and estimates that could be used to criticize the legislation were generally not released," Foster said.

He said he believed that higher-ranking members of the administration than Scully knew of the higher cost estimates his office had computed.

"Did the President know? Did Secretary Tommy Thompson know? I don't know," Foster said. Thompson heads the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the Medicare office.

The White House press office did not respond to requests seeking comment.

The Inquirer reported yesterday that Foster's office had suggested that the drug benefit would cost at least $100 billion more than the $395 billion estimated by the Congressional Budget Office, whose job it is to project costs of legislation.

One projection prepared in early June by Foster's office and obtained by the Inquirer Washington Bureau concluded that a Senate version of the bill might cost as much as $551 billion.

At the time of the estimate, the House was sharply divided on the proposed new Medicare drug benefit, which the administration strongly backed. Ultimately, the House passed the measure, 216-215, on June 27. In November, it endorsed a House-Senate compromise version, 220-215; the yes votes included 13 Republican fiscal conservatives who had said they would vote against the bill if it cost more than $400 billion for its first 10 years.

When Bush signed the bill, the drug benefit was touted as costing $395 billion. In January, Bush's budget director, Joshua Bolten, raised the estimate to $534 billion.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) noted yesterday that Foster's estimates were based on different and costlier assumptions than those of the Congressional Budget Office.

Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson added: "If an individual's job was threatened and if they were trying to shield information from Congress, that could be an issue of concern."

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Finance Committee, said Foster's estimates "should not have been withheld. Government analysts with relevant information should never be muzzled."

In a floor speech yesterday, Daschle called for reopening the vote on the drug benefit. He also called for an investigation into the firing threat and assertions that the administration had withheld its cost estimates from Congress.

"Whether this is criminal or not is a matter we will certainly want to clarify," Daschle said. "But if not criminal, it was certainly unethical. And I think we need to know the facts."

A group of House Democrats concurred, asking that the HHS inspector general investigate.

Foster, a senior civil servant, remains on his job. He said he had new and strong support from Thompson and from Medicare's newly confirmed chief, Mark McClellan.

Bush ads confuse me

Letter to the Editor

Bush's TV ads confuse me. He seems to be pointing out all his failures as if they were accomplishments. He uses 9-11 but is running from the investigating panel as if he were hiding something. He touts the economy but the economy is in the worst shape ever. Taxes are the highest ever - gas is at record high - government spending at record highs and increasing - record deficits - and state economies pushed to the verge of collapse. Schools are shutting down. Hospitals are closing. Greenspan is talking about rationing social security and medicare. Government spying on people. 2 million jobs lost. The country is falling apart. His ads are reminding us of his failures.

Martha Steward Convicted

Letter to the Editor

A jury has convicted Martha Stewart of lying to the government and she will probably go to prison for it. However her lie isn't nearly as serious as the lie Bush told the nation to trick us into going to war with Iraq. Does the government go to prison when it lies to the people?

Bush ad I'd like to see

Letter to the Editor

Here's a Bush style ad I'd like to see: "Kerry voted for Bush's Patriot Act! Kerry voted for Bush's tax cuts for the rich! Kerry voted for Bush's illegal war in Iraq! Now he's changed his mind. Can you trust someone who votes with a slimeball like Bush? NO! -- Vote Bush!"

---------

Yes - it is stolen from a Simpsons epasode - but when the Republicans started criticizing Kerry for voting with Bush - it was the same logic.

Borrowing = Taxes

There's no difference between borrow and spend and tax and spend. Running on borrowed money is just a tax that you have to pay later. So for those who think that a bond measure is not a tax increase - you're being lied to. This 15 billion dollars they want to borrow will cost you more than 15 billion in new taxes.

Democrats and Republicans join on Borrow and Spend

One thing that brings Democrats and Republicans in California together is borrow and spend politics. Borrow and spend is really a tax increase on the credit card. Its spend now and taxes later.

I'm voting NO on Props 57 and 58. California has every tax there is and poor services. In fact - it seems from what I see that the higher the tax rate the poorer the service. The problem with California is that they is too much government and that it needs to be cut. And they aren't going to make the cuts until we tear up the credit card.