About 60% of eligible men escaped military service during the Vietnam era

About 60% of eligible men escaped military service during the Vietnam era
Upper class liberal Christians such as myself were proud draft dodgers.

Google Search

Google search results

Letter to the blog

"Greetings From the Dr. Bob Jones Institute Think Tank."

"As national director of BJI, it is my duty to inform you and/or your organization that a detailed analysis of your positions regarding the Bible, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and in particular your political positions are not compatible with our own. The Dr. Bob Jones Institute stands for strict morality and a totally Christian Theocratic federal government. These of course are the wishes of Jesus."

"Since you or your organization have been tried and found wanting, we must insist that you disband your website immediately and no longer espouse the none sense "we have found there. Since the election of George W. Bush as our 43rd and BORN AGAIN president, and since as you know Mr. Bush did speak at the Bob Jones University and is close friends with Dr. Bob Jones III, BJI hopes you will agree it would be wise for you to obey God's will and to do so promptly."

Sincerely,

Michael C. Kelley

Our Kind

Our Kind
We are the educated elite. We are secular humanists.
WASP > JEW

"Toto, I've got a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore"

"God has no religion" - Gandhi

The One

The One

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP, the smartest man in the world.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP, the smartest man in the world.
I will be your pastor today.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP
Proud Vietnam Draft Dodger

Can I be a Chickenhawk Too?

Can I Be a Chickenhawk Too? You sure can! If you never served in the military, but you go around mouthing off, supporting the war, beating the drum, and advocating that we send Democratic kids off to kill Iraqi kids so that Republican kids can become billionaires, you're a junior chickenhawk!

Brave New World

Brave New World
Only I, Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP can guide you to happiness. Throw off your Jesus shackles and follow me, for only I can lead you to happiness. Tut tut, my good man.

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP has an Rx for you.

"Under the wise leadership of president Obama, two thousand pharmacologists and bio-chemists were subsidized. Six years later it was being produced commercially. The perfect drug. Euphoric, narcotic, pleasantly hallucinant. All the advantages of Christianity and alcohol; none of their defects. Take a holiday from reality whenever you like, and come back without so much as a headache or a mythology. Stability was practically assured."
ALDOUS HUXLEY ( Brave New World )

"Who lives longer? the man who takes heroin for two years and dies, or a man who lives on roast beef, water and potatoes 'till 95? One passes his 24 months in eternity. All the years of the beefeater are lived only in time."
Aldous Huxley

Dr. Mr. Liberal Christian WASP says,

Drawing life to a close with a transcendentally orgasmic bang, and not a pathetic and god-forsaken whimper, can turn dying into the culmination of one's existence rather than its present messy and protracted anti-climax.

There is another good reason to finish life on a high note. In a predominantly secular society, adopting a hedonisticdeath-style is much more responsible from an ethical utilitarian perspective. For it promises to spare friends and relations the miseries of vicarious suffering and distress they are liable to undergo at present as they witness one's decline.

A few generations hence, the elimination of primitive evolutionary holdovers such as the ageing process andsuffering will make the hedonistic death advocated here redundant. In the meanwhile, one is conceived in pleasure and may reasonably hope to die in it.

Liberal Christians


Also sometimes referred to as secular, modern, or humanistic. This is an umbrella term for Protestant denominations, or churches within denominations, that view the Bible as the witness of God rather than the word of God, to be interpreted in its historical context through critical analysis. Examples include some churches within Anglican/Episcopalian, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, and United Church of Christ. There are more than 2,000 Protestant denominations offering a wide range of beliefs from extremely liberal to mainline to ultra-conservative and those that include characteristics on both ends.

Belief in Deity
Trinity of the Father (God), the Son (Christ), and the Holy Spirit that comprises one God Almighty. Many believe God is incorporeal.

Incarnations
Beliefs vary from the literal to the symbolic belief in Jesus Christ as God's incarnation. Some believe we are all sons and daughters of God and that Christ was exemplary, but not God.

Origin of Universe and Life
The Bible's account is symbolic. God created and controls the processes that account for the universe and life (e.g. evolution), as continually revealed by modern science.

After Death
Goodness will somehow be rewarded and evil punished after death, but what is most important is how you show your faith and conduct your life on earth.

Why Evil?
Most do not believe that humanity inherited original sin from Adam and Eve or that Satan actually exists. Most believe that God is good and made people inherently good, but also with free will and imperfect nature, which leads some to immoral behavior.

Salvation
Various beliefs: Some believe all will go to heaven, as God is loving and forgiving. Others believe salvation lies in doing good works and no harm to others, regardless of faith. Some believe baptism is important. Some believe the concept of salvation after death is symbolic or nonexistent.

Undeserved Suffering
Most Liberal Christians do not believe that Satan causes suffering. Some believe suffering is part of God's plan, will, or design, even if we don't immediately understand it. Some don't believe in any spiritual reasons for suffering, and most take a humanistic approach to helping those in need.

Contemporary Issues
Most churches teach that abortion is morally wrong, but many ultimately support a woman's right to choose, usually accompanied by policies to provide counseling on alternatives. Many are accepting of homosexuality and gay rights.



Saturday, August 21, 2004

Book: Bush was arrested for cocaine in 1972

salon.com > News Oct. 18, 1999

Book: Bush was arrested for cocaine in 1972

Texas author J.H. Hatfield claims the Republican front-runner did community service at a Houston center.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Salon Staff

A new book by Texas author J.H. Hatfield claims that George W. Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972, but had his record expunged with help from his family's political connections. In an afterword to his book "Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President" (St. Martin's), Hatfield says he took a second look at the Bush cocaine allegations after a story in Salon reporting allegations that Bush did community service for the crime at the Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center in Houston's Third Ward.

The center's executive director, Madgelean Bush (no relation to George W. Bush), had told Salon News and others that Bush did not do community service there, and the Bush campaign likewise denied the allegation. But the Texas governor had admitted to working at Houston's Project P.U.L.L. in 1972, and Hatfield says he began to wonder if that was actually the community service sentence. Hatfield says he confirmed those suspicions with three sources close to the Bush family he had cultivated while writing his biography, which publishes Wednesday.

Bush's campaign denied Hatfield's allegation Monday.

By contrast, "First Son: George W. Bush and the Family Dynasty," by Dallas Morning News reporter Bill Minutaglio, says George Bush Sr. referred his son to Project P.U.L.L. after an incident in which George W. drove drunk with his younger brother Marvin in the car.

But Hatfield quotes "a high-ranking advisor to Bush" who confirmed that Bush was arrested for cocaine possession in Houston in 1972, and had the record expunged by a judge who was "a fellow Republican and elected official" who helped Bush get off "with a little community service at a minority youth center instead of having to pick cotton on a Texas prison farm."

Hatfield quotes a former Yale classmate who told him: "George W. was arrested for possession of cocaine in 1972, but due to his father's connections, the entire record was expunged by a state judge whom the older Bush helped get elected. It was one of those 'behind closed doors in the judges' chambers' kind of thing between the old man and one of his Texas cronies who owed him a favor ... There's only a handful of us that know the truth."

Another source named only as "a longtime Bush friend" described the situation this way: "Say you get a D in algebra ... and now you're going to be required to repeat the class the following year, but your teacher says if you promise to be tutored during the summer by a friend of hers who's good in math, she'll change the D to a C. You spend a few hours a week during the summer vacation learning all about arithmetical operations and relationships, and then the teacher issues you a new report card, replacing the old one on file in the principal's office ... Something akin to that scenario is what happened with Bush in 1972."

Hatfield also says that when he asked Scott McClellan to comment on the allegation of a former Yale classmate of Bush's that the presidential hopeful was arrested for cocaine possession in 1972 and had his record expunged in exchange for community service at Project P.U.L.L., the Bush campaign spokesman said, sotto voce, "Oh, shit," followed by, "No comment."

McClellan denies that the exchange ever occurred. "I never spoke to the guy, and I'm not aware that anyone at the campaign has spoken to him," he told Salon News.

"This guy should have stuck with writing science fiction," said Bush campaign spokeswoman Mindy Tucker. "He's obviously trying to sell books with something absolutely untrue."

Tucker pointed out that there were no Republican judges in Harris County until 1979 and says that former President George Bush's office "has issued quite a strong statement about how inaccurate this is." The elder Bush's spokeswoman was not reachable for comment.

Hatfield is a Texas reporter and syndicated columnist. He has previously published a biography of "Star Trek" actor Patrick Stewart.

"Our lawyers looked at the manuscript with great care, it was thoroughly fact-checked," Thomas Dunne, publisher of the St. Martin's imprint that's publishing Hatfield's book. "This author is a pretty good digger. He used a lot more sources than Bob Woodward has in a while. I didn't ask for the names of the three anonymous sources he used in regard to the drug charges. His editor might have, I don't know.

"Do I know for a fact these allegations are true? No, of course not. But I know that the author believes them to be true. He researched the book exhaustively and put it together with a variety of independent sources, including many who have never met each other."

"Salon actually started this," Hatfield said in an interview Monday. "The book was finished. The galleys were in and ready to go to print. You guys did the story on the MLK Jr. center.

"When I was working on the book, it's almost like being one of those women who sit around and make quilts all day. You've got all these patches of fabric. The Project P.U.L.L. year in 1972 did not fit his personality. It would be like that one piece on that quilt and you may not notice it. But if I made that quilt I'd be across the room going, 'That piece just doesn't fit. It bothers me.'"

Hatfield says he, like other reporters, didn't pay much attention to the year Bush spent doing community service -- at a time when it was well-known he was drinking and carousing. "I fell for it just like everybody has. Kinda glossed over it -- 'That's nice.' All of a sudden he goes back to his young and irresponsible years again. Why all of sudden would you quit flying your planes, quit drinking, quit chasing women and go mentor inner-city black kids? That piece never fit in.

"He was arrested. He was not charged as far as I know from my sources. What happened was he was picked up, taken to Harris County Jail. Within hours Dad was there.

"I think his dad might have gotten him switched to another judge. Texas judges are elected, which makes a lot of people believe that they can be manipulated and corrupted."
salon.com | Oct. 18, 1999


Chicago Tribune editor backs up Kerry


William B. Rood, a night city editor for the Chicago Tribune, and who served with John Kerry during the Vietnam War, talks Friday about his time as a Swift Boat commander. Posted by Hello

CHICAGO -- A Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Vietnam mission for which John Kerry received the Silver Star is backing up Kerry's account of the incident.

William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission because reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry, according to a report in the Tribune's Sunday editions.

Rood, an editor on the Tribune's metropolitan desk, said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue. Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors, Rood said.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in the newspaper. "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."

According to the Tribune, Rood's recollection of what happened that day in South Vietnam was backed by military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star and a report written by then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded his and Kerry's task force and is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

The mission has become a focal point of a political and media firestorm fueled by the Swift Boat Veterans.

One of the group's leaders, John O'Neill, succeeded Kerry in command of a swift boat. O'Neill is co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," which accuses Kerry of lying about his wartime record and betraying comrades when he returned from Vietnam by alleging widespread atrocities by U.S. troops. The Swift Boat Veterans have repeated the accusations in TV ads.

The Kerry campaign filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election Commission, alleging the Swift Boat Veterans are coordinating their ads with the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign has denied the claim but refused to condemn the book or the group's TV ads.

Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other crew members, requesting that they go public with their accounts of what happened that February day.

"I can't pretend those calls (from Kerry) had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed. The Tribune's deputy managing editor for news, George de Lama, told The Associated Press on Saturday that Rood would not publicly discuss the issue.

When the Tribune asked O'Neill for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book.

A message left with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was not immediately returned today.

Is National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice a lesbian?


Condoleezza Rice


From afterellen.com


Is National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice a lesbian? Thanks to the media coverage of a recent comic strip, that is the question that is suddenly on everyone's lips.

The controversy started last week when The Washington Post decided not to run a strip of the Boondocks comic strip that suggested Rice's single status may be contributing to the continuation of the War on Terrorism--or to quote from it directly, "maybe if there was a man in the world who Condoleezza truly loved, she wouldn't be so hell-bent to destroy it." While no other newspaper pulled the strip that day, the Post defended its decision by invoking a newspaper policy not to comment on the personal life of political figures; furthermore, they stated, "We had no way of knowing whether Mr. McGruder's assertion that Condoleezza Rice had no personal relationship was true or not."

It's debatable whether the comic strip is even suggesting Rice is gay; although that's one possible interpretation, it's not the most obvious one.

What isn't debatable, however, is that it's a sexist comment, which even the comic strip acknowledges--in the next day's strip, one of the characters reacts sarcastically to the first boy's suggestion to find Rice a boyfriend with the comment "What I really like about this idea is that it isn't the least bit sexist or chauvinistic."

This raises an interesting question, actually: is it okay to make sexist comments if, at the same time, you're pointing out that they're sexist? This answer, too, is debatable, but given that the character's comment about this idea being "sexist and chauvinistic" doesn't appear until the next day's strip, it's kind of a moot point to anyone who only read that day's paper.

The Post's decision received some mild coverage following the decision, but didn't really become front-page news until journalist Richard Blow, a former editor of George Magazine, suggested in his column a few days later that the Post pulled the strip in part because they feared Rice would be offended at the possible interpretation of the comment to mean she's gay. "Particularly," Blow added "since there's already scuttlebutt to this effect in Washington, primarily, so far as I can tell, because Rice is single and comes across as a little frosty."

On the one hand, Blow makes fun of the fact that the gossip in Washington about Rice's sexual orientation is mostly fueled by the fact that she is an assertive single woman, and he also criticizes the idea that "any suggestion that someone is gay is so offensive that it has to be yanked from the paper."

On the other hand, when Rice's sexual orientation was only water-cooler gossip in the Beltway and on internet message boards, mainstream news outlets wouldn't touch the subject. Now that Blow has actually put that gossip into print, he's given it a legitimacy it didn't have before--and suddenly news outlets around the country feel just fine passing it along in the guise of "objective reporting" on The Comic Strip Controversy. Not all news outlets mentioned the the gay angle--many just said the Post pulled the strip because it commented on Rice's personal life--but enough news outlets did that many average Americans who were previously unaware of the gossip have now heard about it.

There is a scene in the political drama The Contender (2000) in which Gary Oldman's character publicly decries the vicious gossip spread on the internet about Joan Allen's character, while repeatedly spelling out the website address to ensure the public would have instant access to the gossip. The Post's decision and the media's coverage of it seem suspiciously similar, as if they are slyly discrediting Rice while claiming to protect her.

Like the conflict in The Contender, The Media vs. Condoleezza Rice in this instance is really about sexism, not politics, with a little homophobia and racism thrown in. As the first female and first African-American National Security Advisor, Rice is an attractive target for people uncomfortable with women and African-Americans in positions of power.

Of course, being called a lesbian shouldn't be any big deal, but the reality is that for women (particularly single women) in public positions of power, these kinds of rumors can be very damaging. Rumors of lesbianism have dogged women like Janet Reno, Donna Shalala, and Hillary Clinton (to name a few of the most recent women in power) for years regardless of their veracity.

But whether Rice or any of the political figures gossiped about actually are lesbians is not the point. It's the use of lesbianism as a slur that is so disturbing, since it's based not only on the assumption that a strong, confidant woman must not be a "real" (read: heterosexual) woman, but that only women in heterosexual relationships are "real" women. By implication, lesbians and unmarried straight women are always somehow "less than."

Blow might have thought he was doing the public a service by calling the Post on their decision, but he didn't do Rice or women in general any favors by giving Rice's detractors in the media a platform to spread gossip about her to a national audience and, at the same time, reinforce the idea that lesbianism is a shocking secret--all without any of them getting their hands dirty, since they are just repeating what others have said.

If this is what passes as unbiased news coverage these days, it's no wonder there are still so few women in power. Posted by Hello

Total Destruction of the Imama Ali Shrine

Destruction of the Imam Ali Shrine: Part of the Bushcon Plan for Total War


From Another Day in the Empire

In May, Bushcon swami Bill Kristol declared that slaughtering large numbers of Iraqis “would be respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike … Moqtada Sadr’s militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power.” And so it is, although “respect” is obviously not in the mix. In fact, if anything, Bush’s ill-advised invasion of Najaf and other Shi’ite cities in southern Iraq—and the possible assassination of Mehdi Army leader Moqtada al-Sadr—will “cause reverberations from Iran to Lebanon to Pakistan,” as Youssef Ibrahim, a former New York Times correspondent, warns.


Naturally, Kristol and the Bushcons want “reverberations” and a violent response from Muslims. Kristol, as the Michael Corleone of the Bushcons (the characterization is attributed to David Corn), wants to stoke the fires of jihad because religious war is at the heart of the Straussian neocon Master Plan—a “clash of civilizations” designed to “reshape” the Middle East, that is to provide an excuse to invade and conquer not only Iraq but Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and lesser Arab nations. “We want you nervous,” declared the Bushcon and former CIA director James Woolsey, addressing every single Muslim in the world. “We want you to realize now, for the fourth time in a hundred years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you—the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family—most fear: We’re on the side of your own people.” Of course, for the average Iraqi or Palestinian, the assertion that the Bushcons are “on the side” of the Arab people—as they kill them in the tens of thousands—is nothing less than absurd. Kristol and Woolsey are on the side of the Likudites in Israel and the stockholders over at Lockheed Martin and Raytheon, where the neocons are heavily invested (it’s no secret 32 major administration appointees are former executives with, consultants for, or significant shareholders of top death merchant corporations).

Woolsey and Kristol have taken a page from a script written by Eliot Cohen, a scholar of military affairs based at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, who urges total war against Shia Muslims, pan-Arab nationalists, and Wahhabi fundamentalists—in other words, much of the Arab world. It would be easy to characterize Cohen as simply another lone warmongering and racist crazy mired in the irrelevance of academe, except for the fact that he keeps influential friends—for instance, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who has the ear of Bush and Rumsfeld—and sits on the Defense Policy Board and is associated with PNAC, the Hoover Institute, and other all-war, all the time neocon think-tanks, more accurately described as criminal organizations plotting war crimes.

Cohen is not afraid to admit the obvious: Bush’s “creative destruction” of Iraq and ultimately—if re-appointed in November—the entire Arab world is part and parcel of a long-held Zionist plan to eviscerate Islam and Arab culture. In a tributary letter to Bush shortly after September 11, 2001, Cohen and a gaggle of usual neocon suspects—including Richard Perle, William Bennett, Daniel Pipes, and Norman Podhoretz—declared that “the United States and Israel share a common enemy,” i.e., the “Axis of Evil,” most notably the people of Iran, Iraq, and Syria, nations “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, “just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades.” As these luminaries readily admit, bunker-busting and clusterbombing the Arabs into submission “will not be accomplished quickly or painlessly,” it will require “fortitude” (in other words, the stomach for mass murder) and “moral clarity and consistency” (translation: the willingness to engage in serial murder no matter what the American people desire or how vehement their opposition to the illegal and brutal occupation of Iraq and the preparation for covert activities and invasions of Iran and Syria, the next two targets on the neocon hit-list).

As Juan Cole, an Iraq expert at the University of Michigan, notes, the “Waco-style” Najaf attack, especially if “Sayyid” (a putative descendant of the Prophet Muhammad) Muqtada is killed, will most assuredly result in “a long-term low-intensity guerrilla war, similar to what Sunni radicals and Arab nationalists have done in the Sunni heartland for the past 16 months.” Logically, we would conclude such an attack is diametrically opposed to what the US wants in Iraq—until we consider the capper of the neocon philosophy is to provoke Islam into a generalized conflagration and thus provide an excuse to invade and occupy the Middle East in the name of Greater Israel and Big Oil (with plentiful benefits, as noted above, going to the so-called military-industrial complex, or the death merchants so heavily invested in by the neocon camarilla in the Pentagon, the White House, and neocon criminal organizations such as PNAC and the American Enterprise Institute).

According to Michael Corleone-cum-Bill Kristol, the pompous dignitary of the neocon Mafia, the American people “are ambivalent about Iraq,” that is to say they are reluctant to donate their children or themselves to the neocon and Likudite Master Plan for endless and obviously unwinnable war against 1,902,095,000 Muslims, or one-in-four humans on earth.

Najaf is all about upping the ante. As it now stands, Muqtada al-Sadr was wounded by shrapnel and Iraqi officials are attempting to negotiate an end to the US-initiated offensive. Negotiations in Iraq, however, have a peculiar way of going to hell in a handbasket in short order. No doubt, for the Bushcons, these frivolous negotiations are but a momentary distraction: in their fervid dreams, the US attacks the Imam Ali shrine, where al-Sadr is “holed up,” and incensed Muslims around the world respond with attacks against “soft” US targets (embassies, civilians, bankers in Washington, etc.), all of it playing right into the Bushcon World War IV scenario as spelled out by Eliot Cohen, James Woolsey, and the neocon Mafia intelligentsia.

Is it possible terrorism in response to the destruction of the Imam Ali shrine—and the murder of firebrand cleric al-Sadr—will reach America and thus turn the “ambivalence” of the American people, so abhorred by the likes of Bill Kristol, into the appropriate blood lust of the sort required to get things back to where they were on the September 12, 2001? Is it possible such an attack—or even the ominous threat of an attack as faithfully telegraphed on cue by our Emmanuel Goldstein, Osama bin Laden (via yet another apocryphal audio tape)—will rally the masses behind Bush come November?

No doubt the perfidious Straussian Bushcons hope so.

Is John McCain becoming the pivotal factor in the 2004 election?

From Blog Left

How long will John McCain campaign for George Bush? Remember he was Bush's opponent in 2000, and became very bitter about how Bush defeated him in the South Carolina primary -- see link below. John McCain, evidently, was courted by John Kerry as a potential VP candidate. And in the current mess created by the allegations (and lies) against Kerry by so-called "swift boat veterans against kerry", McCain has come to Kerry's defense over the swift boat veterans' allegations. McCain is walking a tough line: He is currently the most respected political figure in the nation (see the nyt article content). If he comes to the defense of Kerry too vocally, he will undermine is alleged support for Bush. At the same time, his ethical code evidently won't let him allow the swift boat veterans claims to go unchallenged. And the critics of the "swift boat veterans against Kerry" show the smoking gun evidence that the financial support for the smear ends in the White House.

Last night, Mark Shields and William Kristol almost shouted at each other in disputing the "facts" relevant in the "swift boat veterans against Kerry" fiasco on the jim lehrer newshour. And on Bill Moyers' NOW, Kathleen Hall Jamieson's incisive analysis exposed the methods Bush's supporters are using in twisting the facts of this 30 ear old event. One of the upshots, evidenlty, is that we will re visit, again, Bush's own military record -- or lack of a military record.

extracts from nyt:
... Mr. Bush's embrace had effectively empowered Mr. McCain to keep speaking out. "It's almost liberating," the adviser said, "because they also need him to continue to be independent."


[The idea of an "embrace" is both real -- e.g., the now famous "bearhug" and "kiss" in the recent photos, and metaphorical, e.g., the putative "embrace" by McCain of Bush's re-election, inspite to the shabby way Bush attacked McCain -- it was racist -- in South Carolina, during the 2000 election. (Remember that in 2000, Bush played the race card against McCain, by among other things, speaking at Bob Jones University.)]

From that challenge, Mr. McCain has not shrunk. Since joining the president on the trail, he has attacked Mr. Bush's proposal to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage as "antithetical in every way to the core philosophy of Republicans." He has called on the president to denounce commercials by some supporters questioning Mr. Kerry's Vietnam service, describing the advertisement as "the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," in 2000 by Bush supporters.

Mr. Bush has so far ignored Mr. McCain's demand to condemn the advertisements, and Mr. McCain has declined to discuss whatever he may have privately urged the president to do. All that has left some Democrats skeptical about the whole arrangement, and may create some risk that Mr. McCain will alienate the very swing voters who so admire him.

"Bush is so desperate to ride Senator McCain's wave that he's taking the idea of kiss and makeup a little too far," said Mr. Kerry's spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter. "Maybe now he'll take McCain's advice and denounce the dishonest and dishonorable ads attacking Kerry's military record."

'Death after death, blood after blood'

Killing goes on despite claims that siege is over

Luke Harding inside the Imam Ali shrine, Najaf
Saturday August 21, 2004
The Guardian


Inside the pockmarked entrance of Najaf's Imam Ali shrine, there were no police to be seen yesterday afternoon.

Supporters of the rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr loafed on carpets in the pigeon-infested courtyard. A few smoked; others dozed. A couple of young students stood next to a makeshift infirmary; parked nearby was an empty pallet covered in blood.

"We haven't given up. This is a lie by the government," said Amar Al-Khaji, a 29-year-old civil engineer from Baghdad. "As you can see, we are still here."

Only hours earlier a senior Iraqi government official had claimed that Iraqi police had secured the shrine, apparently bringing to an end the two-week standoff with Mr Sadr's militia. At least 400 Mahdi army members had been arrested, and the bloodshed had ended.

By dusk, it was apparent that this was not the case. Hundreds of unarmed supporters of the cleric were bedding down for another night in the mosque. In the rubbish-strewn alleyways around the shrine, fighters armed with Kalshnikovs sat on metal chairs.

The evidence of withering American bombardment was all around: tangled electricity wires, pulverised remains of earth barricades and the smell of decaying human flesh.

Far from being vanquished, the Mahdi army is still in Najaf, battling to win. "The fighting is still going on," Saeed Mustafa confirmed, as we crunched through Najaf's glass-strewn old city toward the shrine, arms raised and waving a white handkerchief.

All afternoon the dusty streets had echoed intermittently with the crump of mortars. Puffs of black smoke wafted over the Imam Ali shrine's golden dome.

The standoff in Najaf has plunged Iraq's beleaguered prime minister, Ayad Allawi, into his worst crisis so far. Mr Allawi issued a "last call" to the cleric on Thursday and the battle is clearly a defining moment for his interim government, which owes its existence to Washington.

Mr Sadr has rejected its authority and refused to compromise with foreign occupation.

What happens in Najaf next will determine Iraq's future, for better or worse. That may in part explain the confusion which surrounds events. The claims of victory, of a Sadr cave-in, appear to be wishful thinking, more than reality.

So, too, is the attempt to portray the battle for the Shias' holiest city as one in which the US military is merely assisting government forces.

At the moment, the Americans are doing all the fighting. The Iraqi police play merely a cameo role: a massive convoy rode towards the shrine yesterday, sirens blazing, celebrating a victory that never happened. Two minutes later it turned back.

On the streets there is exasperation. "Our situation is disastrous," said Abu Qatam, a 25-year-old taxi driver. "We don't have water or power. My neighbour came back yesterday to check on his house and he was killed. We don't know whether the Americans did it or the Mahdi army."

Where the Mahdi army has been newly turfed out, there is little sympathy for Mr Sadr, or for his militia, many of whose corpses lie unburied to the north of the shrine, in Najaf's vast cemetery.

"They are looters, murderers and Ba'athists," a shopkeeper, Abdul Amir, said. His troubles started six months ago, he said, when an American soldier bought one of his fridges.

"A month later the Mahdi army took me to the cemetery, accused me of being an American agent, and beat me up. After that I had to appear before Moqtada's Sharia court. Dozens of people have been tortured or disappeared. Moqtada has a secret underground jail. His followers have executed at least 300 people," he claimed.

It is not a claim that can be easily verified. But what is clear is that in the battle for Najaf, civilians are dying.

Forty six people were injured and 11 killed in the past two days of fighting, the director of Najaf's hospital, Falah Almahana, said yesterday.

A short stroll from his office was the evidence. The newly dead were stored in a makeshift truck, next to a German refrigerating unit that did not work. In it, the bodies were too numerous to count.

But it was clear the small girl with the gamine haircut and the other corpses had little to do with the battle that has been raging down the road. Three blanket-covered bodies lay nearby in the dust.

"They were walking down the street when a mortar landed on them," a morgue attendant, Abu Muhammad, explained.

Even if Iraqi troops eventually storm the shrine, or kill Mr Sadr, it seems optimistic to think his uprising will then disappear. In the town of Kufa, close to Najaf, dozens of Shia militiamen armed with rocket-propelled grenades were yesterday standing on the streets.

As night fell, the small girl's body lay unclaimed in Najaf's morgue. Next to her lay the corpse of a middle-aged woman who might have been her mother.

"I don't believe in violence. I've never fired a gun. The only way to solve this problem is through peaceful means," Dr Almahana said. "But this isn't happening in Najaf. Instead we have sadness after sadness, death after death, blood after blood.

It was always about oil and Israel


Posted by Hello

Energy Information Administration - Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government.

Oil is a commodity and as such it has an inelastic demand curve, thus the last marginal unit of production sets the spot price. This is characteristic of a commodity in which demand has very little response to changes in price.

The United States will never leave Iraq, instead Iraq will serve as a launching point for further protection and control of oil and gas reserves in the Middle East including the Caspian Sea. Thus the United States will control both the supply of oil as well as the price..

Obvisouly the control of oil and natural gas is of strategic importance to the United States.

What was wrong was simply not telling the truth.

Daily U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq

Fri Aug 20, 7:27 PM ET

By The Associated Press

As of Friday, Aug. 20, 949 U.S. service members have died since the beginning of military operations in Iraq (news - web sites) in March 2003, according to the Defense Department. Of those, 708 died as a result of hostile action and 241 died of non-hostile causes.


The British military has reported 64 deaths; Italy, 18; Spain, 11; Poland, nine; Bulgaria, six; Ukraine, six; Slovakia, three; Thailand, two; and Denmark, El Salvador (news - web sites), Estonia, Hungary, Latvia and the Netherlands have reported one death each.

Since May 1, 2003, when President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat operations in Iraq had ended, 811 U.S. soldiers have died — 599 as a result of hostile action and 212 of non-hostile causes.

___

The latest deaths reported by military:

_ A Marine was killed in action Thursday in Anbar province.

_ A U.S. soldier was killed Thursday by a roadside bomb in Samarra.

The latest identifications reported by the Department of Defense (news - web sites):

_ Army Spc. Jacob D. Martir, 21, Norwich, Conn.; died Wednesday in Sadr City when his patrol came under fire; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 5th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

_ Marine Lance Cpl. Caleb J. Powers, 21, Manfield, Wash.; killed Tuesday in Anbar province; assigned to 2nd Battalion, 4th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

_ Marine Lance Cpl. Dustin R. Fitzgerald, 22, Huber Heights, Ohio; died Wednesday in a non-hostile related vehicle incident in Anbar province; assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/2, 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Lejeune, N.C.

_ Marine Sgt. Harvey E. Parkerson III, 27, Yuba City, Calif.; killed Wednesday in Anbar province; assigned to Battalion Landing Team 1/4, 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit, Camp Pendleton, Calif.  Posted by Hello

W's performance in this 1992 wedding video excerpt--shot years after Bush went cold turkey in July 1986


Bush's D-Dubya-I Posted by Hello

If George W. Bush ends up in the White House, The Smoking Gun would like to be the first web outfit to formally offer Dubya an artifact for his future presidential library. The Republican's wacky performance in this 1992 wedding video excerpt--shot years after Bush went cold turkey in July 1986--needs to be preserved for future generations.

The video was shot at the August 29, 1992 wedding of Jamie Weiss, the daughter of Dubya's close friends Mike and Nancy Weiss. Mike, a Lubbock, Texas lawyer and CPA, was Bush's campaign chairman during his first political race (an unsuccessful 1978 congressional bid) and was one of the Texas governor's earliest political appointments. Nancy, also a Bush appointee, had a prime speaking slot on the final night of the Republican convention. She told the crowd, "I wish you could see how he reaches out to people, teasing those who can take it and protecting those who can't."

Indeed, what a teaser!

When cameraman T. Patrick Murray filmed Bush during the wedding reception at a Lubbock country club, the future governor took some rambling--and we presume good-natured--swipes at the newlyweds, the bride's parents, and her brother Kelly (Bush was being quizzed by a member of the bridal party). We love the part where teetotaler George actually disses two of the Weisses for supposedly not drinking or smoking. And as for those weird Don King-like "only in America" cracks--not to mention what's in that glass--your guess is as good as TSG's.

Click here for Bush's wacky wedding performance
(you'll need QuickTime to view the one-minute clip).

If you're QuickTime deficient, try this .avi file.


George Bush and his father talk about "Pussy"

A "major league asshole"

In an embarrassing gaffe, George W. Bush insults a New York Times reporter.

By Jake Tapper
- - - - - - - - - -

September 04, 2000 | At a Labor Day event in Naperville, Ill., Monday morning, apparently oblivious of the microphone just inches from his mouth, Gov. George W. Bush made a crude offhand remark about a reporter that those in the campaign of his rival, Vice President Al Gore, hope will take some of the shine off Bush's warm and sunny veneer.

Waving and smiling to the crowds, Bush and his running mate, former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, seemed to be enjoying the generous reception offered by the Republican enclave in the Chicago suburbs.

Then Bush spotted New York Times reporter Adam Clymer, who has been with the paper since 1977, serving as national political correspondent during the 1980 presidential race, as polling editor from 1983 to 1990 and as political editor during the successful presidential campaign of Bush's father in 1988.

"There's Adam Clymer -- major league asshole -- from the New York Times," Bush said.

"Yeah, big time," returned Cheney.

Because of the crowd noise, few if any of the audience could hear the remarks. But reporters -- especially those with radio or network TV sound equipment plugged into the microphone -- heard the remark clearly. As of early afternoon Monday, media executives were reportedly deciding whether or not to use the tape.

The Bush campaign had no comment. Gore's campaign, however, was quick to seize on the gaffe. "Bush promised to change the tone and now he's broken his word twice," said Gore spokesman Douglas Hattaway. "He launched negative personal attacks on Al Gore" both through a recent negative ad against Gore, "as well as on the stump, and now he's using expletives to describe a New York Times reporter in front of a crowd of families. He talks out of both sides of his mouth about changing the tone."

Bush has made civility a major issue in the campaign. When Gore expressed irritation at Bush's waffling on the presidential debate schedule, calling it "put up or shut up time," Bush said, "We have to do something to change the tone of the discourse," adding that "politics doesn't have to be ugly and mean."

Yet within hours a Bush-approved attack TV ad that mocked Gore personally and was paid for by the Republican National Committee was running in more than a dozen swing states.

"I thought it was tongue-in-cheek," Bush said, when asked if the ad went against his pledge to "change the tone." Later, when asked about the ad by two of Clymer's colleagues at the Times, Alison Mitchell and Frank Bruni, Bush dismissed complaints about the ad, saying, "This is politics."

Though he's done a decent job of hiding it in this election cycle, Bush has been known to use salty language. At the Republican National Convention in 1988, he was asked by a Hartford Courant reporter about what he and his father talked about when they weren't talking about politics.

"Pussy," Bush replied.

salon.com

Can You Forgive Them? Ostracizing the people who were right on Iraq.


Scott Ritter Posted by Hello

Slate
By Timothy Noah
Aug. 20,2004

The most striking thing about this week's statement by Rep. Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., that "it was a mistake" to go to war in Iraq is how little controversy it's stirred. In canvassing Nebraska's other members of Congress, all of them Republicans save Sen. Ben Nelson, the Lincoln Journal Star found no objections to Bereuter's conclusion, and much agreement. The paper's own editorial board praised Bereuter for delivering an "honest and unflinching assessment."

Bereuter's conclusion is uncontroversial because it reflects a growing consensus within the respectable mainstream. William F. Buckley has stated, "[I]f I had known back then in February 2003 what we know now I would not have counseled war against Iraq." The New Republic has opined, "The central assumption underlying this magazine's strategic rationale for war now appears to have been wrong." Fareed Zakaria, a former Iraq hawk, now says the Bush administration's "strange combination of arrogance and incompetence has … destroyed the hopes for a new Iraq," which is a roundabout way of saying he was wrong to trust its use of military power there. Here at Slate, I gave last-minute support to the Iraq war because I believed (wrongly) that Colin Powell's famous Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations left no doubt about the presence of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. (I'd still like to know what that wiretapped phone conversation concerning "forbidden ammo" was all about.) Had I known then what I know now, I, too, would have opposed the war.

Being wrong about the war may have caused me mild embarrassment among some of my friends on the left, but it has most certainly not cost me entrée into the power salons of Washington (to the marginal extent that I was ever welcome there in the first place). It hasn't exacted a price from anyone else, either. Indeed, some former hawks, like David Brooks and Kenneth Pollack, have enhanced their reputations for thoughtfulness by admitting that they botched this one. But the oddest outcome concerns not those who were wrong about Iraq, but those who were right. The political mainstream shuns them.

The Democratic nominee, you'll notice, is not Howard Dean, who opposed the Iraq invasion, but John Kerry, who favored it, and who now at least pretends to believe that his decision to support the invasion was sound. Walter Pincus, the skeptical hero of Howard Kurtz's admirably critical Aug. 12 examination of the Washington Post's Iraq blunders, is nonetheless described in that piece with condescension as a "white-haired curmudgeon" and a "crusader" (inside the Post, that's not a compliment) whose stories, as written, are unpublishable. It remains risky for most members of Congress to admit to even reading The Nation, much less agreeing with it, but many surely wish they'd heeded its editorial opposing the Iraq war resolution. Patrick Buchanan, who editorialized against going to war in the American Conservative and elsewhere, remains a fringe figure even among conservatives.

The non-rehabilitation that seems most baffling and unjust is that of Scott Ritter, the former U.N. weapons inspector who argued till he was blue in the face that the United States would find no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Ritter's reputation was dealt a devastating blow by a November 2001 cover story in the Weekly Standard about his weird transformation from Iraq hawk to Iraq dove. Ritter's conversion remains a mystery (he's argued that his views never changed, despite a substantial paper trail to the contrary), and the Weekly Standard's Stephen F. Hayes offered it as exhibit A in his argument that Ritter could no longer be taken seriously. But the article is a lot less persuasive today on this latter point than it seemed at the time. It began with Ritter saying, "Iraq today represents a threat to no one," which, Hayes opined, was an argument only Tariq Aziz would make. Three years later, of course, Ritter's assessment seems sound (assuming it did not include people then living inside Iraq), and Hayes' characterization seems idiotic. Here's another passage from the Weekly Standard piece that hasn't aged well:

Virtually every expert on Iraq and arms control disagrees. Ambassador Butler, Ritter's former boss with the U.N., says that Iraq never disarmed during the 1990s and almost certainly has weapons of mass destruction today. Charles Duelfer, Butler's number two, believes Iraq currently has biological and chemical weapons, and the means to deliver them. Arms control experts Gary Milhollin and Kelly Motz, with the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, detailed in the July issue of Commentary the steady and stealthy weapons trade with Iraq.

Strictly speaking, this was perfectly accurate. The trouble was that Hayes failed to anticipate that "virtually every expert on Iraq and arms control" could be wrong.

I mean in no way to hold Hayes up to ridicule. Remember, I blew this one, too. But if those of us who thought Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons are to escape censure, minimal fairness demands that those who said Iraq did not possess these weapons be accorded some belated respect. But with very few exceptions (the Boston Globe is one), the press in the United States continues to treat Ritter as either a leper or a clown. To some, the very fact that Ritter was right is precisely what causes offense. Columnist Collin Levey in the April 16 Seattle Times, complained that Ritter

wants credit and glory as a prophet for saying that Iraq's WMD programs were a myth or at least severely curtailed. In February, he wrote a self-satisfied told-ya-so piece in the International Herald Tribune. "Not everyone was wrong," he wrote. "I, for one, was not."

But if Ritter is blowing his own horn, that may be because nobody else is going to blow it for him. I bet he'd have preferred to blow it on the op-ed page of the New York Times or Washington Post, two places where his byline has lately been scarce.

Part of Ritter's problem may be that he is dogged by allegations that he made sexual overtures to a 16-year-old and a 14-year-old. Ritter has confirmed that he was arrested and that the case file was sealed, but he has refused to discuss the matter further. Even assuming the allegations are true, though, it's easy enough to make the necessary mental distinctions. Scott Ritter: Wrong on age of consent. Right on Iraq.

Not long ago, I spoke with a Democratic moderate about the war in Iraq. He said he considered support for the Iraq war to be a necessary prerequisite to assuming any powerful role in the party. It showed that the person in question was willing to project U.S. force abroad. But wait, I asked. Do you still think the Iraq war was a good idea? After some hemming and hawing, he admitted that he'd rather we hadn't gone in. Then why make support for a mistaken policy a litmus test? Because, he repeated, it shows that the person in question is willing to project U.S. force abroad. I should emphasize that we weren't talking about whether troops should be withdrawn from Iraq, which is an entirely separate and vexing question that speaks to our responsibility in a country whose previous government we destroyed. What this man was saying was that it was better to have been wrong about Iraq than to have been right. That's the prevailing (though not always conscious) consensus in Washington, and it's completely insane.

Timothy Noah writes "Chatterbox" for Slate.

Friday, August 20, 2004


War is Peace Posted by Hello

North Korea Is Reaching Out, and World Is Reaching Back


Food and goods were on sale recently at a market in Pyongyang, North Korea. Economic reforms have improved the nation's economy.

North Korean citizens visiting the Goethe Information Center in Pyongyang got a taste of uncensored reading material from Germany. Posted by Hello

New York Times
August 20, 2004

By NORIMITSU ONISHI

SEOUL, South Korea, Aug. 15- Even as the Bush administration has worked to isolate North Korea in a campaign to make it drop its nuclear program, Asian and European governments have been actively engaging it on diplomatic, cultural and economic levels. Now, with the pace of engagement quickening, it is the administration that risks becoming isolated, experts say, a possible factor in a recent moderation in its stance.

A country famous for its hermetic borders, North Korea now has embassies in 41 countries and diplomatic ties with 155. It recently held the first-ever military talks with its former archenemy, South Korea, and is moving toward normalizing diplomatic relations with its former colonizer, Japan.

North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Il, a hard-core Communist who has begun tilting his country toward a market economy, extolled the virtues of profit during a visit in June to a North Korean factory. South Korean businesses will start operating this year in an industrial park in the North that by 2006 is expected to employ 30,000 North Korean workers.

Against this backdrop of intensifying engagement, Washington's attitude has begun easing in recent weeks. In June, President Bush, who famously lumped North Korea into his "axis of evil," made the first significant offer to the North Koreans since coming into office. The Bush administration had come under increasing pressure from Democrats and other participants in talks on North Korea's nuclear program - South Korea, China, Russia and Japan - to come up with an offer.

"They were drifting away from the U.S.'s line, and the U.S. was becoming isolated," said Chung In Moon, a foreign affairs professor at Yonsei University here and an adviser to President Roh Moo Hyun. "They were fed up with America's failure to come up with a concrete plan, and the Americans realized that."

In contrast, Asian and European diplomats and businessmen who have long dealt with North Korean officials describe an eagerness to adopt new ideas and policies, leading some to make comparisons to two formerly reclusive Communist Asian nations, China and Vietnam.

Proponents of a hard line against North Korea say it is not really interested in change, but in simply avoiding economic collapse and driving a wedge between the United States and its allies. Whatever the North's motives, those favoring engagement argue, the North Korea of today is less isolated and more economically stable than it was just two years ago.

North Korea began opening up immediately after its first summit meeting with South Korea in 2000. Since then, it has established diplomatic ties with 19 new countries, including Britain, Australia and nations of the European Union.

"We support the engagement of North Korea," said Tadeusz Chomicki, the Polish ambassador to South Korea. "We think the isolation of North Korea would not produce goals that are desirable. It is through engagement that we can present to them democracy and democratic institutions."

Germany, which has led European efforts to engage North Korea, opened the first Western cultural center in Pyongyang, North Korea's capital, in June. The Goethe Information Center - a step below a full-fledged institute - now operates on the second floor of a cultural center next to the Ministry of Culture. It offers uncensored access to German reading material - half of it consisting of popular media, the other of scientific material - and is open to all. North Korea is said to have German speakers because of its ties with the former East Germany.

"We can call this a breakthrough," said Uwe Schmelter, who is the director of Seoul's Goethe Institute and negotiated the Pyongyang center's opening with North Korean officials. "For a country that has been labeled as isolated, reclusive and unchanging, a change is a change."

During negotiations, Mr. Schmelter said that North Korea never objected to the center's contents or open access. After negotiations over the center were completed, North Korea asked Germany to build a training center for librarians and researchers. In September, Germany is expected to begin offering 10-day classes on modern research techniques, including use of the Internet.

"They asked us," Mr. Schmelter said. "They came up with the next step."

Perhaps even more notable are the effects of the economic reforms that North Korea announced two years ago, including floating exchange rates and prices, and granting more autonomy to enterprises and farms. According to visitors to North Korea, once bare store shelves are now stocked with all sorts of consumer goods, many from China. About 300 markets selling food, clothing and other goods have been established. The number of cars in Pyongyang is said to be increasing, including that of the Whistle, a car that the South Korean Pyeonghwa Motors began assembling with parts from Fiat in Pyongyang in 2002.

Hyundai Asan, the South Korean company that already operates a tourist resort in southeastern North Korea, will open the first phase of a $180 million industrial park in Kaesong in southwestern North Korea. Parts of a new highway and railroad to Kaesong, cutting through the once impenetrable demilitarized zone separating the South and the North, have already been built.

Shim Jae Won, a senior executive vice president at Hyundai who has negotiated with North Korean officials since 1989, said the changes in North Korea since 2002 amounted to "10 times" what had occurred before.

In May, Mr. Shim and seven other Hyundai officials took eight high-ranking North Korean officials on a 10-day tour of Chinese special economic zones in Shanghai and Shenzen. Hyundai had been urging them to visit the sites for three years. But they had apparently been reluctant to do so until North Korea's leader himself, Kim Jong Il, visited those sites during a three-day tour of China in April.

The North Koreans were impressed, Mr. Shim said, by the Chinese economic zones and were clearly using China as a benchmark.

"They said, 'It took China more than 20 years. We need more time. We just started,' " Mr. Shim said. "I had never heard them make that kind of comment before."

At the same time, the governments of America's two closest Asian allies, South Korea and Japan, have been aggressively engaging in bilateral talks with North Korea. After paying his second visit to North Korea in May, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi of Japan said his country might normalize relations with the North within a year.

As for South Korea, it recently began holding high-level talks with North Korea on the most difficult of areas: the military. In May, generals from the North and South met for the first time since the Korean War, and agreed on several issues related to their common border.

"The scope and frequency of our talks have been increasing," said Kim Yeon Chul, policy adviser to the minister at the Ministry of Unification. He added that in 2003 the two sides held 38 meetings totaling 106 days.

Moon Ha Yong, director general of policy planning at South Korea's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, minimized the differences in approach to North Korea. He said that while South Korea's policy toward North Korea was one of peace and prosperity, it was strongly emphasizing that the nuclear issue must be resolved before fuller relations and investments.

As an indication of the different approach taken by the United States, South Korean officials have chafed at a human rights bill passed last month by the House of Representatives. Called the North Korean Human Rights Act, it seeks to support North Korean refugees in China and promote human rights in China.

"We hope the bill won't have any bad effect on the Korean peninsula," Mr. Kim said.

In an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last month, James A. Kelly, assistant secretary of state and chief negotiator with North Korea, played down any divisions with South Korea and Japan. Mr. Kelly also said that even if North Korea agreed to dismantle its nuclear program, the United States would not establish normal relations unless the North improved its human rights record.

A Western diplomat here cautioned against attaching too much importance to European and Asian nations' engagement of North Korea, saying that they tended to make few difficult demands of the North Koreans. In turn, he said, North Korea often gained economic benefits by merely establishing diplomatic ties with those nations.

They've Changed, So They Say

By: Andrew Sullivan

Who's afraid of former homosexuals?

At first blush, of course, it's easy to see why the recent newspaper advertisements promoting the "truth" about homosexuality -- that it can allegedly be changed -- might provoke a strong response from homosexuals and their allies.

The advertisements, sponsored by 15 religious-right organizations, featured Anne Paulk, a self-described "wife, mother, former lesbian," and were intended to advance the idea that homosexuality is a free and sinful "choice" and therefore unworthy of civil rights protections. This idea is marshaled by fundamentalists who, sadly, see nothing uncivil about describing another group of functioning, productive citizens as "diseased."

The campaign is clearly a desperate gambit to change the terms of the debate about homosexuality, a debate the religious right has been steadily, inexorably losing for two decades. The leaders of the far right realize that unless they can redefine homosexuality as a pathological illness, it is only a matter of time before the logic of civil rights protections embraces a group of people they find threatening.

But in its desperation, the right may well have overreached. A closer examination of "reparative therapy," the psychoanalytic treatment that allegedly turns homosexuals into heterosexuals, reveals it to be far less threatening to the argument for gay equality than first meets the eye. Indeed, in some ways, the arguments and ideas behind reparative therapy paradoxically strengthen, rather than weaken, the case for gay rights.

Take the notion of a "cure." Even the reparative therapists themselves believe it to be extremely difficult in most cases, requiring therapy five times a week often for years. They claim a "success" rate of about 30 percent, but their patient population is skewed to those most willing and desperate to make a change. A more realistic figure of a conversion rate for a representative population of gay men would be far lower.

As Freud himself argued, "In general, to undertake to convert a fully developed homosexual into a heterosexual is not much more promising than to do the reverse."

Freud was also ahead of the game in distinguishing between a psychoanalytic "conversion" and what most people think of as a cure.

He once wrote to a mother who was seeking his help to change her gay son: "In a general way, we cannot promise to achieve it."

Or, in the words of a contemporary reparative therapist, Steven Richfield, the most realistic goal of such therapy is "a satisfying heterosexual adaptation which is not jeopardized by the periodic intrusion of homosexual fantasies."

One of his patients puts it in more human terms: "I've come to accept that there is a part of me that I may never be able to get rid of. But maybe I can learn to live with it."

Then there's the notion that homosexuals "choose" their sexuality.

If the literature of reparative therapy teaches anything, it is how deep homosexuality runs in a person's identity, and how enormously difficult it is to alter. Most reparative therapists think sexual orientation is fixed in early development before the age of 18 months or, at the latest, three years.

The most prominent psychotherapist in the field, Charles Socarides (whose own son is gay), specifically denies that homosexuality is a choice. What he and other reparative therapists argue, in fact, is something very advantageous to the argument for gay equality: even if homosexuality is not genetic but environmental, it is still involuntary.

In other words, homosexuals have as much choice over their sexual orientation as they do over their race or sex.

Of course, reparative therapists would be appalled at the comparison of sexual orientation with gender or race. For them, homosexuality, while unchosen and deeply ingrained, is still a pathology or psychological disorder.

But this part of their argument is increasingly unpersuasive. As more and more gay men and women live and work openly in our society, the clearer it becomes that they are not demons, disease-carriers or psychopaths. We have our problems -- gay men in particular -- but the problems are recognizably human problems: of love, commitment, sexuality and intimacy.

Moreover, the contribution gay people make and have always made to society and civilization is hardly the mark of psychological dysfunction. I wonder whether Trent Lott, who recently compared homosexuals to compulsive thieves, has ever read Whitman or Proust or Auden. Or listened to the music of Copland, Tchaikovsky or Britten. If he does, does he think: kleptomaniacs?

There is, however, one final glimpse of hope in the rhetoric of the religious right in this matter. In its advertisements, the right admirably insists that "ex-gays" be allowed a forum, and to be free from abuse, derision or condescension.

I couldn't agree more. The kind of struggle that these people have had in their lives is a struggle that just about every gay person recognizes. It is the struggle to become who you are. If someone genuinely feels he cannot live with himself as a gay man and decides to submit to grueling therapy and join a particular sect of American Protestantism to be able to live a heterosexual life, then who am I to stand in his way? These conflicts are so deep, these choices so personal, that only the individual can resolve them.

But by the same token, doesn't the "ex-gay" owe the same tolerance to me? Shouldn't this struggle be deemed beyond the reach of politics and coercion? If one owes it to an ex-gay not to cast aspersions on her sincerity and mental health, should one not also owe it to a lesbian?

I would not, moreover, deny someone her civil rights because she resolved this issue in a heterosexual way. I wouldn't deny her the right to marry the person she loves, nor would I deem her beneath the civic responsibility to defend her country in the military. On what principled, nonsectarian grounds, then, would she plausibly deny those same civil rights to me?

In a strange but beautiful way, then, the religious right may have finally stumbled onto the true moral ground. The more you think about it, the rights of former homosexuals are truly indistinguishable from the rights of gay men and women. Those rights include the pursuit of happiness as one sees fit, and equal protection of the laws in a republic where no single religion is privileged.

So let the leaders of the religious right continue their battle for self- determination. But let them apply that principle universally. They will discover that they have joined the gay rights movement after all.

Andrew Sullivan, a senior editor at The New Republic, is the author of the forthcoming book "Love Undectectable."

Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad


John Kerry, hands on hips, and Roy F. Hoffmann, kneeling, in Vietnam. Mr. Hoffman helped start a group that criticizes Mr. Kerry. Posted by Hello

August 20, 2004

By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to win medals and build a political career, Senator John Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements categorically false and branding the people behind them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the forefront of the presidential campaign. It has advanced its cause in a book, in a television advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows, all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record, a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign" - a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.

In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr. Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley, provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F. Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in 1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L. Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement about the "bravado and courage of the young officers that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in 11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed," "beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in 1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was issued a letter of censure for exercising undue influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders whose military approach had led to the deaths of countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" - the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with some of the state's most powerful Republicans and building an impressive client list. Among the companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.

Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that he had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the top donor to Republicans in the state, according to Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and 1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been associates since at least 1986, when they both worked on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years. "I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30 years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state according to the Texans for Public Justice, has donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest diversified commercial real estate companies in the nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers. He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr. Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel for the Department of Commerce, according to her biography on the law firm's Web site.

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor. They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's in crucial states during their fierce primary battle. The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air, was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr. Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984. She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms. Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said that she had been there only once, in 2002, when Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr. Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman, public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said of the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising agency that made the group's television commercial: Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria, Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the "tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman for the Swift boat veterans said the organization decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas in April to share outrage and plot their campaign against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale, who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said. "Not just for me, but for many of them who had not heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to find "some neutral way of actually questioning people involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr. Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had collected as well as additional veterans rallied by Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded group gathered in Washington to record the veterans' stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized. But the validity of those affidavits soon came into question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was not forthright" in the statements that had led to the award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as saying that he felt he should not have signed the affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry," has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery, a conservative company that has published numerous books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr. Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person administering treatment" for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess you'll have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L. Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the book that he had been on the small skimmer on which Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon, say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three," Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a conversation with another veteran earlier this year and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr. Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They say the charge to the beach was planned the night before and, citing a report from one crew member on a different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr. Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for recognition, have previously said that a medal would be awarded only if there was corroboration from others and that they had thoroughly corroborated the accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news conference, adding, "It was a very complete and carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense" and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the action was what anyone would have expected of a sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added, "that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr. Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said the initials refer to the person who had received the report at headquarters, not the author.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."

Thursday, August 19, 2004

Bush gals to see gay vows


Erwin Gomez & James Packard invited Jenna and Barbara Bush (below) to wedding party.


When Washington-area beautician Erwin Gomez and his longtime partner James Packard celebrate their marital vows with 400 of their closest friends next month, two of Gomez's best customers will probably be in attendance: President Bush's twin daughters, Jenna and Barbara.

Yesterday, the 39-year-old Gomez - a makeup expert for the Elizabeth Arden shop in the D.C. suburb of Chevy Chase, Md. - told Lowdown that the First Twins have become devotees of his popular eyebrow waxes over the past few weeks.

And, Gomez added, Bush's daughters have expressed an enthusiastic desire to go to Gomez and Packard's Sept. 11 wedding celebration at their home in Laytonsville, Md.

"I gave them the party invitation, and they said, 'That sounds great, we'd love to come - it sounds like a lot of fun,'" Gomez said.

"The way they reacted, they were very open-minded."

Never mind that their father supports a constitutional ban of gay marriages.

Heterosexual marriage, Bush said in February, is "the most enduring human institution" and "cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society."

While Gomez holds the hard-carousing girls in high regard ("so casual and so real"), his disgust for their father's politics is obvious.

"I think it's wrong - he has no right to touch that," he said. "He's trying to change the freedom of America. ... History is repeating itself, just like blacks and Jews were discriminated against."

Gomez and Packard were "wed" last spring in San Francisco after Mayor Gavin Newsome issued them and scores of others a marriage license.

But the legality of such unions has been in question since the California Supreme Court last week declared that Newsome exceeded his authority in sanctioning gay marriages.

As for the Bush sisters, "I've done their eyebrows three times - they usually just call my cell and pop in," said Gomez, who also plucks and waxes the eyebrows of Saudi Princess Haifa.

Yesterday, the First Twins' spokeswoman, Susan Whitson, had only this to say: "At this point I cannot confirm that the twins are attending. I only comment on official campaign activities." Posted by Hello