http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-et-pbs23jun23,0,2525169.story?coll=la-home-headlines

THE NATION
Public Broadcasters Face 'the Fight of Our Lives'
By Matea Gold
Times Staff Writer

June 23, 2005

WASHINGTON — On the eve of a vote crucial to its financial health, the public television system is being buffeted by political and economic forces that have pushed it into a situation many say is one of the most precarious in its 38-year history.

The House of Representatives is considering a measure today that would nearly halve federal funding for public television — a move that broadcasters predict would force the closure of small, rural stations and curtail production money for programming.

At the same time, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the private agency that distributes federal funds, is embroiled in a highly unusual partisan struggle involving allegations of secret contracts with Republican lobbyists and a consultant who graded former "Now" host Bill Moyers on political bias. Meanwhile, PBS faces increased competition from the expanding world of cable, which offers the very history, arts and children's programs that were once its sole domain. And its own prime-time audience, at an average age of 61, is nearing retirement.

The result is a period of high anxiety that rivals previous brawls over PBS, including then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich's effort to eliminate all federal funding for public broadcasting in 1995.

"In my opinion, this is probably the most tumultuous time that we have had," said David Hosley, general manager of KVIE, Sacramento's public television station, who has worked in the field for 18 years. "This is much more serious, much more divisive, and I'm fearful that it may be more successful in harming America's public broadcasting system."

The measure before the House today would strip more than $200 million, including money for Ready to Learn, an initiative that helps finance children's shows such as "Reading Rainbow."

Republican supporters say the cuts — part of a large package of reductions in the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill — were necessary to help overcome a $1.6-billion shortfall.

"Choices are easy when dollars are plentiful, but that was not the case this year," Rep. Ralph Regula (R-Ohio), chairman of the subcommittee that approved the cuts, said in a statement.

But broadcasting officials hope they can head off the measure, either through a bipartisan amendment expected to be offered today that would restore $100 million to the CPB budget or later in the summer, when the Senate is expected to take up the measure.

As they lobby lawmakers to preserve their money, a partisan battle has overtaken the nonprofit corporation charged with distributing the federal funds to PBS, National Public Radio and local television and radio stations. At its center is Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the board, who has sought to stamp out what he sees as a liberal bias.

The confluence of events has local station officials deeply concerned and fretting that the system is being torn apart by partisanship when it needs unity.

"There definitely has been a period of demoralization," said John Lawson, president of the Assn. of Public Television Stations. "I think the actions of Ken Tomlinson have been quite damaging. The controversy around them has hurt us in the eyes of the public and it has been a huge distraction."

Tomlinson, former editor of Reader's Digest, has maintained that he is seeking only to bring more balance to public broadcasting, thereby expanding its viewership and strengthening it in the process.

Paradoxically, the upheaval has galvanized the usually sedate world of public television and given local radio stations additional ammunition in their fundraising appeals.

Marshaled by spots on their local stations, people have flooded their local congressional offices with phone calls protesting the cuts. MoveOn.org gathered more than 1 million signatures in a week from opponents of the measure. And members of the CPB board said they had received thousands of e-mails from viewers weighing in on Tomlinson's actions.

"The positive in all of this is it has provoked a public debate about public television, which I think is a healthy thing," said Paula Kerger, chief operating officer of Thirteen/WNET in New York.

The struggles over public television's finances and politics come amid continuing nervousness about what can be shown on the public airwaves.

Earlier this year, PBS President Pat Mitchell declined to distribute an episode of the children's program "Postcards From Buster" that featured a family with two lesbian moms, a show that came under criticism from Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. Weeks later, PBS sent member stations an edited version of a "Frontline" documentary about U.S. troops in Iraq that cut out the profanity used by soldiers.

"Public television should be doing cutting-edge and daring things, and unfortunately we haven't done a lot of that lately," said Bill Reed, president of KCPT in Kansas City, Mo. "I think we've gotten a lot more cautious."

Mitchell announced in February that she would leave her post when her contract expires in June 2006. She said the move was unrelated to the controversies, but acknowledged that the job has been more difficult than she thought it would be.

Despite the upheaval of the last six months, officials note that public television has had some success. With an average prime-time audience of 2.3 million people, PBS has lost viewership from five years ago but has seen an uptick in the last year, according to Nielsen Media Research, which PBS executives cite as evidence that the public still seeks noncommercial television.

Though it lags far behind the viewership of the large commercial networks, PBS, with a prime-time rating of 1.8, resoundingly beats the average prime-time audience of cable competitors such as A&E and Discovery, which garner less than half of that. An average audience of more than 81 million people tunes into PBS stations every week.

"While there are a lot of different channel offerings, there still is no one using the media as a public service in the way that public broadcasting does," said John F. Wilson, senior vice president for programming at PBS.

But that message has been overshadowed in recent months by activities at the CPB, where Tomlinson has pushed for more conservative voices in public broadcasting during his 21-month tenure. He has complained that Mitchell is "politically tone-deaf" about what he said was liberal bias in the "Now" program when hosted by Moyers. And he has suggested that NPR has not been objective in its Middle East coverage.

The corporation's inspector general is investigating Tomlinson's activities, including his hiring of a former White House official and giving of contracts to two GOP lobbyists.

Tomlinson has defended his actions, saying that he has worked only to improve public broadcasting. But critics, many of whom are Democrats, charge him with injecting partisanship into the very agency that is supposed to be a political buffer between Congress and PBS. On Tuesday, 16 Democratic senators sent President Bush a letter asking him to fire Tomlinson. The White House declined, reiterating its support for the chairman.

Tomlinson was appointed to the board in 2000 by President Clinton and reappointed three years later by Bush. His colleagues elected him chairman the same year.

Moyers — who retired in December to write a book — said Wednesday he believes the charged debate has had a chilling effect on PBS.

"Since the right has succeeded in demonizing me and politicizing this debate, there's a nervousness on the part of a lot of stations about carrying controversial programming, quite frankly," he said in an interview on the radio program "Democracy Now!"

Mitchell, also on Wednesday, called on the CPB chairman to demonstrate his commitment to public broadcasting by fighting the proposed budget cuts.

"We're in the fight of our lives now," the PBS president said in a conference call with reporters. "And if, in fact, his goal has been — as he has stated, and we take him at his word — to broaden the base of our support, well, here's a chance to prove it and have a positive impact."

Tomlinson said Tuesday that he would fight the cuts, which caught public broadcasters by surprise when they were approved by a House subcommittee earlier in the month.

A spokeswoman said Regula, the chairman of that subcommittee, was not available for an interview because of a busy voting schedule. Unlike 1995, when GOP leaders made an ideological argument to eliminate federal financing for public broadcasting, Republicans have been quiet about this year's measure.

Although the cuts would slash the federal funds for local television and radio stations, NPR enjoys a financial cushion, a bequest of more than $200 million made in 2003 by the late Joan Kroc, who was married to McDonald's founder Ray Kroc. It and its member stations also benefit from an expanding, upscale audience — 26.1 million weekly, double its size seven years ago — that supports local fundraising drives.

The measure going to the House is raising concern for PBS. It calls for eliminating money that would help stations convert to digital broadcasting and upgrade the PBS satellite.

Broadcasters say stations in rural, poorer areas of the country are most vulnerable.

"It could mean the end of public broadcasting for our station in upper Michigan," said Eric Smith, general manager of WNMU in Marquette, which relies on CPB for half its revenues.

New York's Thirteen/WNET, which produces one-third of the prime-time PBS schedule, says it would have to curtail its production of new shows and seek projects that would appeal to private underwriters.

On Wednesday, public broadcasting allies remained cautiously optimistic that the cuts could be averted. Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.), Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) and James Leach (R-Iowa) planned to offer an amendment to restore $100 million.

"I truly do not believe that there is much enthusiasm" for the cuts, said Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), co-chairman of the Congressional Public Broadcasting Caucus.


Public broadcasting's woes

The federal government provides the annual budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which distributes funds to local stations. That funding makes up 15% of total public broadcasting revenues. However, some rural stations rely on federal funds for up to 85% of their budgets.

Federal funding for CPB

For fiscal years, in millions

2006: $400 million (Without proposed cuts)

*

Proposed cuts for 2006

From the $400 million CPB appropriation:

- $100 million

From other federal budget line items:

- $23.4 million Ready to Learn program (provides funding for programs such as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow" and "Postcards from Buster")

- $39 million to help TV stations convert to digital systems

- $40 million to upgrade PBS' satellite systems.

*

Change in prime-time ratings

(October 2000 to March 2001 compared with October 2004 to March 2005)

Basic cable: +27%

Pay cable: -12%

Four major networks: -13

Public television: -14

Other broadcast networks: -23

Sources: Corporation for Public Broadcasting; Assn. for Public Television Stations Nielsen Media Research

Cutting PBS funding = assault on truth?

That's only if you accept the premise that PBS = truth. A laughable proposition to anyone who watches it critically.

The new programs on PBS that I've seen are lame, in the same way that new RIAA music is lame compared to music produced 25 years ago. It would be better for PBS to shut down new program production and show reruns. The old Julia Child Frech Chef programs, for example. The old Nova programs were much better than the pablum that passes for science reporting today.

With the advent of the internet and all the choices offered there, and with satellite and cable, America needs PBS and NPR like a fish needs a bicycle.

Public TV ratings DOWN 14% in just one year. Doesn't that tell you what America's real opinion of PBS is? People are voting with their remote controls. Congress is only reflecting the dissatisfaction of the people who pay for this crap.

At a time where the Budget is woefully out of balance Luxury Items like Public Television and Radio should be up for review.

"That's only if you accept the premise that PBS = truth."

Yeah, we all know that Fox is the only source of fair and balanced news.

Well...I watch Frontline occasionally, but since they quit showing Dr. Who, I haven't watched it much, except for when they show re-run/ marathons of Fawlty Towers (one of my faves). So, I am not a big fan in general of PBS, except when they do those "raise money" begathons trading tote bags for hundreds of dollars, but, that being said, I had TEN MILLION TIMES rather see 100 million tax dollars spent on PBS, than a U-2 spyplane like the one that got mysteriously shot down and pilot killed recently.

And even more to the point, if you got to one of my blogs, http://codewarriorz.blogspot.com , I have a real time counter showing you how much money is being pissed away in that modern Babylon, Iraq. If there is a biblical WHORE of BABYLON, it is Bushy, Rove, and his Theo-Con, Neo-Con, RepubliCONS.

Read this:
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/1351/1/102/
"The official administration line was that it would cost roughly $50-60 billion, around the same price tag for the first war with Iraq. Former Budget Director Mitch Daniels and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted on a $50 billion figure.

If troop withdrawal began now, a serious dent could be made in future deficits by returning lost revenues to the states. Education could easily be fully funded; local economies and crumbling infrastructures could be rebuilt. Funds for public transportation, health care, and other services hit hard by the loss of revenue to Bush’s war could be replenished.

One administration official, Lawrence Lindsey, Bush’s assistant for economic policy, told Congress that it would cost about 1-2% of GDP, or between $100 and $200 billion.

His estimate, now proven too conservative, was described by Bush officials as "too high" and overstated. Lindsey was promptly fired.

And, in the attempt to sidestep the legal responsibility of an occupying force to provide resources for reconstruction, former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted that oil revenues of $50-$100 billion annually would cover reconstruction costs. "

-and later in the article--
"So far $180 billion has been spent, including $9 billion simply lost due to corruption and mismanagement, according to quiet internal reports to Congress. A total of over $210 billion has been earmarked for spending, according to analysis done by the National Priorities Project. Untold millions have been paid for bloated "no-bid" contracts to companies with inside people in the administration, like Halliburton.

No Iraqi oil revenues have been used to offset costs and very little reconstruction has taken place, as many parts of the country remain without electricity, potable water, jobs, health care services, schools, and more. And the destruction continues.

Reasonable estimates say that in the every near future, unless troop withdrawal begins, the cost will touch $300 billion.

According to the National Priorities Project the $210 billion could have paid for much needed programs in the US, including: health insurance for 46 million people, over 3 million new elementary school teachers, 24,000 new schools, 27 million children could have been placed in Head Start programs, or 1.8 million new affordable housing units.

For Michigan taxpayers the cost of war has amounted to $5.6 billion, or $2.8 billion for each year of the war. According to the Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, the 2006 budget deficit will total $1.7 billion.

Without Bush’s war, it is reasonable to conclude that states like Michigan wouldn’t have to be in the fiscal mess they find themselves in.

In fact, if troop withdrawal began now, a serious dent could be made in future deficits by returning lost revenues to the states. Education could easily be fully funded; local economies and crumbling infrastructures could be rebuilt. Funds for public transportation, health care, and other services hit hard by the loss of revenue to Bush’s war could be replenished."

So, 180 Billion THUS FAR....a Billion is a THOUSAND MILLION...so we are talking about 180,000 MILLION! And, for that 180,000 MILLION, our reward is close to
2000 (not there yet, but headed that direction) soldiers dead, and many more wounded, and a country which has probably more violence now than we know what do do with.

And, in the midst of this Iraqi quagmire and boondoggle, these BASTARDS have the temerity to cut funding to the tune of 100 Million of a positive program !

Fox has it's Bias, CNN has it's bias, and PBS has it's Bias.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED NEWS!

All news is biased to cater to a target audience, TV news is a huge business and it is slanted towards a target demographic.

And, lest we forget...
http://www.thenewamerican.com/departments/quotes/presidents_war_powers.htm
"THE NEW AMERICAN: Worth Repeating -
War Powers


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

"The Congress shall have Power …
"To declare War …
"To raise and support Armies …
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia...."

U.S. Constitution
(Article 1, Section


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

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States...."

U.S. Constitution
(Article 2, Section 2)"
==========
And this applies to King George the Cowardly (GWB)
"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our [1787] Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us."

Abraham Lincoln
(Letter to William Herndon, February 15, 184"

==============
And then this from that big fat A-HOLE , Henry Hyde
""Mr. Chairman, I think it is a fact of modern history that declarations of war are gone. I think they are anachronistic. I do not think they will happen. Clearly the Constitution assigns the declarations of war function to Congress and only to Congress. But declaring war has consequences in a technologically advanced world that nobody wants to face.... We have the untrammeled authority to unappropriate, disappropriate funds. That is the key; and that makes us the king of the hill."

Representative Henry Hyde (R-IL)
(Congressional Record, June 7, 1995)

======SNIP=====
King of the Hill...Hmm...capitol Hill..King George the Cowardly....

Hmmmm...Do Tell!

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED NEWS!"

That's the problem. THERE SHOULD BE! PBS is supposed to be one avenue that such "unbiased" opinions would be shown. We all know that that also hasn't been the case.

The worst part about the bias in news is the fact that these stations will HIDE news that is detrimental to their owners profitability. PBS could have easily filled this void, but has been completely mismanaged on become a political football to be kicked around. So much for the PUBLIC airwaves.

The entire Budget needs to shrink. The first place the Goverment needs to look is it's payroll. Granted $100 Million compared to $1.8 Trillion (give or take a few hundred billion) is a small piece of the budget, nut it would help. Congress needs to stop using the budget to buy themselves re-election.

When you can't afford healthcare because jobs don't pay enough, and we have no national healthcare plan, it puts Sesame Street and Bombing Iraq in perspective. We need to clean the turds out of the carpet of our own living room before driving hundreds of miles to another person's house to tell them how to arrange the boxes in their garage!

And don't get too comfortable in that house of yours, because if the Gov. wants it, they can take it...
see this...
http://news.cincypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050623/NEWS01/506230389
"Court: Cities can seize property

By Kimball Perry
Post staff reporter

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that governments - such as the city of Norwood - can seize private property for economic development even if done for a private developer, a move Norwood's attorney calls "good news" for the city's eminent domain battle."

I disagree that there should be unbiased news, largely because it is impossible to put in practice. In my opinion news outlets should be more open about their biases and let people decide what they want to watch.

Also would someone like to find the line in Article 1 section 8 where it says Congress shall establish news and entertainment media?

"THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS UNBIASED NEWS!"

The truth has no bias. That's why we're not allowed to know it.

The Supreme Court decision on Norwood is a huge mistake. Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Kennedy have essentially rolled back one of the prinicples of the American Revolution, the right to hold property.

Truth only exists in things that can be objectively measured, such as it is true that a Football field is 120 yards from goalpost to goalpost or that it is 62 degrees F in Seattle as I write this. If the news stopped at "The Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of New London" (reference is to the New London v. Kelo case Code is talking about) it would be unbiased, however the AP story I read on it is loaded with opinions which by definition are biased. Truth and facts are not the same, and people frequently mistake their own opinions for the truth. I will agree that the news rarely puts all the facts on the table when reporting, it doesn't matter which news outlet you choose they all withhold something.

stevebugge, soon you will hear from the Supreme Court that they agree with MPAA and only large corporations should have a right to property.

"The first place the Goverment needs to look is it's payroll."

lets not forget entitlements and subsidies.

Bias occurs in the way the truth is presented. PBS has the most unbiased (or used to) news coverage I've seen since Cronkite and Huntley/Brinkley. Back then when a newscaster had something to say the words "editorial" would flash on the screen showing it wasn't a news story. just an opinion.

As far as the supreme court decision. Just an observation but isn't the justices who supported taking away property on the Liberal side of the court?? just an observation.

compmore -- We can't possibly know that until we know the contents of their iPod and whether or not they've read any books about Osama bin Laden.

Osama is just a means to an end. The easiest way to control people is to unify them against a common enemy...second easiest is to say God told you people must do something. Combine them into one...and you have the Theo-Con/ Christian Fundamentalist regime whipping up the crowd against the dreaded "Moslem fundamentalists"....

The Crusades didn't die, they've just been renamed and wearing GI gear.

We iz gittin' stuppider bi thu minut...

I wouldn't care if PBS/NPR was biased or not, as it is still one of the very few intelligent offerings left when compared to network or popular cable channels.

Take a look at MTV or the "N". This is the kind of crap the next generation is watching, and if that is the only stimulus for the younger masses, then we are in trouble.

"The Crusades didn't die, they've just been renamed and wearing GI gear."

Amen. Team America - f**k yeah!

"The Crusades didn't die, they've just been renamed and wearing GI gear."

You can say something that rediculous and still say you support the troops with a straight face? amazing.

George that may be true I just remember how quickly everyone complained abbout the justices (who decented in this case) who were too conservitive and handed the election to Bush but now the others (who are said to have liberal leanings) are the ones taking away property rights. if it applies toward one group it should apply toward the other.

Like I said, just an observation.

Actually, I agree with you, compmore.

I think sometimes people confuse a conservative or liberal interpretation of the Constitution with political leanings, but it's not the same thing at all.

very true

Code, it really takes a lot of gall to quote Lincoln on the cost of war. The Civil War's cost, both in per capita expense relative to national income and in personal cost in casualties, was an order of magnitude more than the war in Iraq. The North probably could have bought all the slaves in the South and set them free for what they spent on the war, without a million men dead. (But then the war wasn't REALLY about freeing the slaves anyway, was it?) And Lincoln's war was prosecuted so badly, we didn't even begin to have victories for the North until several years into the crisis.

Nah, if you are going to compare wars, give me Iraq over the Civil War any day. We lost ten times more men on one battle -- Gettysburg -- than we've lost in two years of the conflict in Iraq.

There is no comparison.

welp they've gone and elecuted the Dragon Lady to be President of PBS, it's official. She has zero experience in broadcast media.

Patricia S. Harrison, the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, was selected after three days of closed meetings by the corporation's board of directors. She was co-chair of the Republican National Committee from 1997 to 2001.

"Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object."

The Lincoln quote has nothing to do with the Civil War. It's about the Constitution being designed to prevent having an all-powerful king.

"But then the war wasn't REALLY about freeing the slaves anyway, was it?"

Oh please enlighten us all with your version of history.

actually the war was origionally about stoping the expansion of slavery. Lincoln even said that if he could win without freeing one slave he would.

In the South, we call it the "War of Northern Aggression"...

Hey, I got gall...lol

To stay off topic, here's an interesting link on the War of Northern Aggression
http://www.pinzler.com/ushistory/timeline6.html
1861 July 22, U.S. Congress passes resolution declaring that the war is being fought to "preserve the Union," not to destroy slavery.

Some other worthwhile reads ...
http://www.civilwarhome.com/pulito.htm
LINCOLN'S ABUSE OF POWER DURING THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

and, a blast from the past BEFORE we went to war with Iraq...
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/columns/fl.dean.warpowers/
"Members of Congress, however, have raised the more fundamental question of whether the President can launch a war against Iraq without Congressional approval. According to reports out of Crawford, Texas, President Bush thinks he can. He believes the authorization Congress provided his father in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm is still good.

Nonetheless, The New York Times reports that the President may, when he returns from his vacation, seek support from Congress. And the Senate Armed Services Committee has announced that it is going to hold hearings on a war in Iraq when the August recess ends. Now that Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have laid out the basics of the administration's case for a pre-emptive war against Saddam, they want to examine it.

It strikes me that the Democrats are right to insist that President Bush submit the question of going to war with Iraq to the Congress. It would be good for Democrats, good for Congress, and good for the nation. Moreover, it could clarify the fuzzy standards that have become the law of the land when it comes to Presidential power to declare and conduct war.

Never has there been a more appropriate moment to re-examine the President's war powers. We should deliberate and decide to go (or not to go) to war, as our Constitution contemplates, and not merely start marching, as the chest-pounders in the Executive branch advocate.


The decision to go to war is exclusively that of Congress

Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers. Presidents, the Congress and the courts have made going to war, once a serious constitutional issue, and a purely political question.

As a result, in the last half century, the war powers clause of the Constitution has become a nullity, if not a quaint relic. While conservatives often insist on following the letter of the Constitution on most issues, on matters of war they ignore it.

That's a disgrace, because the Framers of the Constitution carefully laid out the decision-making process for war. Pursuant to the document, war is a decision to be made exclusively by the representatives of the people -- the Congress. Only Congress is authorized to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and make the rules for these armed forces. There is nothing vague or unclear about the language in Article I, ¤ 8, clauses 11-16. "

Remember, the last properly declared war, i.e. declared by Congress, was WW II.
"Our history of Congress declaring war

On five occasions, Congress has, indeed, declared war, just as the Constitution contemplates: with England in 1812, Mexico in 1846, and in Spain in 1898, and in World War I and World War II. In each instance, Congress did so at the request of the President.

On at least two occasions, Congress has refused to declare war despite a president's seeking such a declaration. In 1815, Congress turned down President's Madison's request to go to war against Algiers -- authorizing instead limited naval action. In 1999, by a tie vote of 213 to 213, the House of Representatives refused to give President Clinton a declaration of war against Yugoslavia for action in Kosovo.

From 1789 until 1950, presidents repeatedly engaged the nation in military hostilities through unilateral exercise of their powers as commander-in-chief. Yet when doing so they always sought congressional authority, even if after the fact.

An often-cited example of the practice of unilateral Presidential warmaking is President Lincoln's commencement of the Civil War while Congress was in recess. Yet what is less frequently noted is that he sought ratification of his action when Congress returned. "

An interesting comparison between Lincoln's War, aka the War of Northern Aggression and the Iraqi BoonDoggle...is this... as you see above, neither the "Iraqi War" nor the "Civil War" were properly declared wars, i.e. delcared by Congress.

Americans were fighting Americans, just as in Iraq, we have Iraqis fighting Iraqis as well as Americans fighting Iraqis.

But, even more apropos, there is an excelent article on point with regard to this particular topic of the Iraq War and the American Civil War...
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=5&article_id=14804
(Here's only a brief excerpt from the longer article at that link)
"What the American Civil War can inform us about Iraq

By David Ignatius
Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 05, 2005


The most famous battlefield of the American Civil War might seem an unlikely place to look for lessons about Iraq. But as historian James McPherson led a group of Pentagon officials in a discussion of postwar reconstruction, some startling common themes emerged.

Pentagon officials gathered in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, last weekend for a conference on "Transition from Crisis." The meeting was organized by the Highlands Forum, a discussion group sponsored by the defense secretary and the Pentagon's research arm, DARPA. Usually, the group's meetings focus on the military implications of new technologies, such as nanotechnology or computer networking robotics. But this session was about how to rebuild societies, rather than defeat them militarily. It was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's famous "Pottery Barn Rule," revisited: You broke it, and now you own it. So how do you put it back together?

To prepare for the discussion, McPherson guided the army generals and Pentagon civilians along the rocky slope of Little Round Top to where the 20th Maine volunteers launched the mad bayonet charge that saved the Union army's flank, and then to the open field where Confederate General George Pickett made his disastrous charge against the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge. After walking the battlefield, McPherson and the group explored what had happened when the war ended - and the intriguing parallels between postwar Iraq and the postwar American South.

The Civil War, like the invasion of Iraq, was a war of transformation where the victors hoped to reshape the political culture of the vanquished. But as McPherson tells the story, reconstruction posed severe and unexpected tests: The occupying Union army was harassed by an insurgency that fused die-hard remnants of the old plantation power structure with irregular guerrillas. The Union was as unprepared for this struggle as was the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad in 2003. The army of occupation was too small, and its local allies were often corrupt and disorganized.

Reconstruction suffered partly because of a mismatch between a transformational strategy and haphazard tactics. Northern radicals like Representative Thaddeus Stevens wanted to break the old slaveholding aristocracy and remake the South into a version of New England, with former slaves and poor whites dividing up the plantations. But only weeks after President Abraham Lincoln's assassination, President Andrew Johnson was moving to protect the privileges of the old regime. Even after Johnson was impeached, the Union balked at enforcing the tough land-reform strategy evoked by the slogan "Forty Acres and a Mule." "

Sadly, it seems we've reached the point where the Constitution is no longer relevant on matters of a president's war-making powers.

the constitution is no longer relevent in much of anything.

Apparently, neither are PBS or NPR.

No respect here for the Supremes--once they broke the law in 2000, I found them pretty lame anyway. The battle over the Constitution will go on in Congress forever, but if my understanding is correct, any amendments must be ratified by the states...and it's rare that it ever gets done. As long as the structure is intact...oh, screw it, guys, I'm an eternal optimist. I'm just getting a lot louder about it as I get older.

broke the law?? I won't go there. don't want this to be another 200 comment thread.

I just remember the great line from the most recent star wars. something like "so that's how liberty dies, with thunderous applause." When PPS goes that should be a warning signal.

If all PBS' recieved an equal share of funding I might still tune in. I used to live in New Hampshire and their PBS got heavy donations and their yearly auctions were phenomenal. As a result, they had excellent programs, tons of BBC shows and the only commercials were about PBS. I moved to Maine and less funding = boring PBS, with little BBC and lots of commercials. Children's educational programming is a mere shadow as well. I'm now one of the many who've turned to cable (BBC America!).

If PBS recieves less federal funding I expect they'll compensate with bigger fund raisers. I don't think their programming can get much worse at this point. A little less corporate and a lot more grass-roots is the likely result of diminishing federal funding.

Comp, that was just my example. Don't mind me, I've always had a problem with authority. I've always believed certain things were right or wrong, just because they were. Like murder is always wrong. Giving to the needy is always right. Imposing your (not you personally) beliefs on others is *wrong*; sharing is *right*. Can't help myself. PBS is *right*, Tomlinson is way way *wrong*.

NPR has crappy bumper music..but I like that Prairie Home Companion though.

House Won't Cut Public Broadcasting Funds
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/24/AR2005062400198.html

Code, I agree that Lincoln is not all he's cracked up to be. And I agree that the Congress should authorize war.

It is a moot point now to say there should have been an official declaration of war against Saddam Hussein. But for all practical purposes the Congress DID authorize the war. The Democrats voted to authorize the President to prosecute it. And they were not deceived by Bush into thinking Saddam had WMDs. Democrats had been saying for years that Saddam had WMDs, was developing WMDs, and that we needed regime change. Bush could not trick Democrats into believing in WMDs. They already believed! It was not, therefore, a hard sell, to persuade them to authorize military action. Here are the quotes:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop
weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our
bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We
want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal
here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security
threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times
since 1983."
- Sandy Berger (aka Sandy BURGLAR), Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.
Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air
and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the
threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle
(D-SD), John Kerry ( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass
destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made
a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building! weapons of mass
destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue
apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to
redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile
program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States
and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others,
December 5, 2001


"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat
to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the
United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of
delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 1! 9, 2002


"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter
and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in
power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological
weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical
and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is
seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002


"I will be voting to give the President! of the United States the authority
to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a
deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively
to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next
five years .... We also should remember we have always underestimated the
progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every
significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his
chemical and biological weapons, and an! y nuclear capacity. This he has refused
to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that
Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock,
his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is
clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase
his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to
develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam
Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the
production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec.! 8, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly
grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he
is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his
consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein
with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Read 'em and weep, folks.

Thus the Congress authorized the war, though they did not declare war. This is in the SPIRIT of the Constitution, if not the letter. I think complaining that Bush acted unilaterally, like a king, is really at odds with the facts, at odds with the words taken from the very mouths of Democrats who claimed Bush deceived the country. If Bush deceived the country about WMDs, so did these Democrats, starting back in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration.

That said, I do agree that wars should be officially declared. Vietnam was a police action. Ha ha. Not funny.

That's my final word on this. I'm sorry to have gone so far off topic. Every once in a while the temptation to wander off the path cannot be resisted.

WOW!! excellent.

"If Bush deceived the country about WMDs, so did these Democrats, starting back in the 1990s, under the Clinton administration."

So both political parties were ready to kill people over the non-existent WMD with no valid evidence whatsoever. That doesn't make it right and it certainly doesn't justify being the dumbass who authorized it.

Clinton was impeached for lying. So was Nixon.

If we impeach Bush, then we get Cheney. I say let the monkey boy stay! He's funnier than anyone since Gerald Ford. Bush thinks about Iraq every day. Every single day. Wow.

I think George W. Bush is the Puppet of Karl Rove, the Puppetmaster...
http://karl-rove.blogspot.com/

so all of our politicians were wrong on both sides of the asile. I do agree that Bush didn't go to war because of WMD's but dispite Sadams use of chemical weapons on his people and on Iran, dispite all the UN reports and later in the 90's the weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country and hampered from verifying a program that didn't exist, and dispite the six month notice of our intent to invade giving him ample time to hide finished products (perhaps in Sirya), and the discovery of equipment, labs and raw chemicals used in chemical warfare stored in military compounds camoflauged, yes I concure that Sadam had a beautiful change of heart for peace. I'm getting all warm and toasty inside.

I also am part owner of the Golden Gate Bridge I can make a good deal on. any takers?

I'm trying to behave, comp. Biting my tongue...it's my birthday. Tomorrow I'll fight with you.

well happy birthday shadowmom. hope you're having a good time with your family. what are you.... 28 this year?

sorry, my sarcasm gets the best of me sometimes

I was 29 for so many years, I can't remember....thanks. I have the feeling this is a birthday I will remember.

a good memory I'm sure. My wife hates birthdays too. I tell her to look at it this way, the kids are about gone and that's when the fun begins.

Three days ago, my nephew fell asleep driving home from work. Rolled his jeep 3 times--he's fine (thanks to his seatbelt). Two days ago, my sister-in-law hit a police officer's car. He was going through a red light with lights on, but no siren, and she didn't have time to stop. She's okay, too. So just joking I told my other sister-in-law I was afraid to go out of the house because these things always come in threes. My husband went out to get dinner for my birthday, and called a few minutes ago to tell me he had an accident. He's okay, but I don't know what happened till he gets here. Am I having fun yet? At least it now appears to be safe to go out on the road again...

Sorry...bummer...personal business. I just have nothing else to do until he gets home. He has my car! Later...

Oh my.

oh wow!