Even with the improving economic outlook, administration officials said, the federal budget deficit in the current fiscal year is likely to exceed last year's deficit of $374 billion, the largest on record. The Congressional Budget Office and the White House budget office have projected a deficit of more than $450 billion this year.

BUSH'S BUDGET
Robert Pear, The New York Times


4 January 2004
Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo

---

From the Dept. of the Interior Website: "How long would it take to count to one billion? Try it! Start counting one number a second without stopping until you reach a billion. You will be able to stop in 31 years, 259 days, 1 hour, 46 minutes, and 40 seconds!"

Now multiply that number by 450.

---

1...2...3...4...5...6...7...8...9...10...11..12...13...14...15...16...17...18...19...20...21...22...23...24....25...26.....

31 December 2003, Bob Fitrakis, FreePress.org

As the new year unfolds, one unmistakable fact remains unreported in America’s submissive mainstream media: our President George W. Bush is a war criminal. Any attempt to state this obvious fact is ignored and any Democratic Presidential hopeful who suggests we repudiate the new Bush doctrine of American imperialism and instead, work for world peace, is dismissed as a “vanity” candidate and told to drop out of the race.

The case against President Bush is overwhelming. The nonprofit American Society of International Law, consisting mainly of scholars, has laid out the case against the President in article after article in a dispassionate fashion. Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist organization, both the United States and Britain attempted to comply with international law. When Operation Enduring Freedom, the massive military assault on Afghanistan, began on October 7, 2001, both countries adhered to the United Nations Charter Article 51 by notifying the Security Council that they were attacking Afghanistan under the doctrine of individual and collective self-defense. Most international law scholars accepted the United States’ right to self-defense against terrorist bases in Afghanistan.

From legitimate self-defense, the Bush administration suddenly resurrected the discredited Nazi doctrine of “preventive war” with Bush and his collaborators arguing that in the battle of “good” versus “evil” the United States had the right to attack any country that might pose a future threat to our nation.

The Bush administration is using the recent capture of Saddam Hussein for propaganda purposes to justify its illegal and criminal war against Iraq. Some newspapers have gone so far to question the practicality of the “Bush doctrine” without pointing out its illegal and criminal nature. For example, Matthew Hay Brown of the Orlando Sentinel wrote in a news analysis piece the day Saddam was captured, that: “By striking at a country that was not threatening to attack the United States and without hard evidence of weapons of mass destruction or links to al-Qaeda officials hope to show the length to which the United States would go to protect itself.”

The Columbus Dispatch ran Brown’s analysis on its front page. Still there was no mention of the universal repudiation of the Bush doctrine.

Let’s start with the obvious. Any law scholar will tell you that pre-emptive self-defense is unlawful under international law– from Article VI of the Nuremberg Charter to the UN Charter. In fact, the United States was the guiding force behind both the Nuremberg trials and the establishment of the United Nations. At the end of the second world war, with the Nazis defeated and discredited, the United Nations Charter, a treaty binding on the U.S., prohibited nations using preventive force in Article II, Section 4. Only the Security Council has the authority to take measures against “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, and acts of aggression.”

The only exception to this is the right of individual and collective self-defense that the U.S. and Britain invoked under Article 51. The key, of course, is that you have to be attacked or that an enemy must be in the process of attacking you. Under the UN Charter, you cannot simply say here’s a list of “rogue nations” who may at some undefined time in the near future pose a threat to you because they may harbor weapons of mass destruction, which we have in abundance, and they are not allowed to have. Nor is there anything under international law that says simply developing a weapons program amounts to an armed threat or attack. If this were true, every country on Earth would be justified in attacking the U.S., the country with the greatest number of WMD’s, at any time.

A few voices in the Democratic Presidential primary have attempted to raise substantial issues concerning U.S. foreign policy but the mainstream media is obsessed with its “politics as horse race” mentality focusing mostly on who is in the lead. So, while the talking heads analyze the post-Saddam capture “Bush bounce” and predict that no President with a favorable rating over 60% going into a presidential election year has ever lost, they miss the point that if they actually reported that world consensus holds their president to be a war criminal, then maybe his rating wouldn’t be so high.

Perhaps the most egregious example of a journalist trying to silence debate on the Bush doctrine was ABC debate moderator Ted Koppel who suggested that peace candidates Dennis Kucinich, Ambassador Carol Mosley-Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton should drop out of the debate. When Kucinich directly challenged Koppel suggesting that it wasn’t the media’s role to define who should be in or out of a presidential race prior to the people casting votes, ABC retaliated by pulling the fulltime reporter covering the Kucinich campaign.

Recently the Pope reminded the world that the war against Iraq is illegal. Perhaps ABC could take the fulltime reporter they pulled from Kucinich and put him on fulltime research on the illegality of the Bush doctrine and its eerie parallels to Nazi Germany and its attack on Poland.

And they might want to look into the story Popular Mechanics broke in its December 2003 issue showing a satellite photo of a pipeline through Kuwait looting Iraqi oil from the Ramalah oil field.

Our Troops and Theirs
27 December 2003, Suvrat Raju, ZNet | Iraq

Nicholas Kristof tabulated the casualties of the war in The New York Times on Nov 19: "... at a cost so far of 400 American lives and (one study suggests) at least 11,000 Iraqi lives." I was struck by the obvious racism. Kristof does not mention it, but he is counting American troops and Iraqi civilians. The 30,000 Iraqi soldiers who perished in the war are not awarded the status of human beings. Kristof is a meek liberal but turning to more radical sources, I was distressed to find the same attitude. For example, writing for Counterpunch, David Vest argued that reconstruction benefits should be awarded to American troops and Iraqi civilians.

The American government has set out the terms of discourse for discussions on the cost of the war. "We did not mean to kill their civilians, but those who took up arms against our boys deserved to die. You dare not suggest otherwise." The anti-war movement, in a display of rare unanimity, has accepted these rules. In the mainstream as well as the alternative media, I have read dozens of articles discussing the plight of American troops. It is almost laughable to think of an article devoted to the travails of Iraqi militants. We seem to have accepted that they are illegitimate terrorists. I believe that this is part of a larger problem that we need to grapple with: our attitude towards the U.S. military and the Iraqi resistance.

The right wing has tried hard to appropriate the troops. Before the war, I remember counter-protesters at anti-war rallies yelling at me to 'support the troops.' Michael Moore points to this: "One thing was for sure -- if you said anything against the war, you had BETTER follow it up immediately with this line: 'BUT I SUPPORT THE TROOPS!'" Bush, with his foray to the USS Abraham Lincoln and his daredevil visit to Iraq, has tried hard to associate himself with the troops. This tendency has been noted and criticized.

What has not been noted is that the anti-war movement has also tried to appropriate the troops. Lest anyone suspect Moore of blasphemy, he quickly adds: "people like you have ALWAYS supported 'the troops'." Moore typifies a branch of the anti-war movement that proceeds with a highly romanticized view of the American army. In this view, 'our kids' oppose the occupation and would like to return home.

This viewpoint has its merits. It is undeniable that military service is a form of oppression. To quote Moore again: "They are our poor, our working class." Moreover, it is true that many troops are speaking out against the occupation. Organizations like Military Families Speak Out [MFSO], are an important part of the anti-occupation movement.

However, this view cannot accommodate Corporal Ryan Dupre who was quoted during the war: "Wait till I get hold of a friggin' Iraqi... I'll just kill him" or the hubris captured in the famous photograph of American troops ensconced on Saddam's throne. Neither does it account for the fact that occupation troops are now guilty of every crime in the book ranging from rape and murder to petty larceny. Not a day passes without the emergence of a new story of the sadistic exploits of 'the troops.' Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died. 'The troops' killed them.

FULL ARTICLE

---

30 December 2003, Suvrat Raju, Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice Weblog: Our Troops and Theirs [part 2]

2 January 2004, W. David Jenkins III, SmirkingChimp.com

Oh, and while we're at it, there are a few things that continue to make no sense to me whatsoever. Consider the following:

* Democratic presidential candidate, Howard Dean, recently came under fire from both sides for his remarks that America wasn't any safer after the capture of Saddam Hussein than it was before. Less than a week later, America went to code orange. Well, what the heck? Are we safer or not?

* The reason we went to code orange, according to authorities, is that there was an increase in "chatter" that had not been heard since the days prior to 9/11. If they recognize the similarity now then what the hell were they doing almost three years ago? Think about that one for a minute. Lets try to remember that John Ashcroft was ordered not to fly commercially in July of 2001 because of all that "chatter."

* The GOP in California (and nation-wide supporters) did a complete one-eighty and embraced a candidate who was one hundred times the misogynist they claimed Bill Clinton to be. "Ah-nold" supporters stated that multiple claims against their candidate concerning his abominable treatment of women were "just politics." And they said it with a straight face! It'd be funny if it weren't so pathetically hypocritical. On a side note - ever since the recall, California has been tragically beaten up with wild fires, earthquakes and now mudslides. Not to make light of such horrible circumstances, but if you ask me, it doesn't seem like God is on their side after all.

* Here's a real simple one. If the actions taken by Bush Inc. are alleged to be the "right thing" - how come the rest of the world hates our guts? Bush-kissers remind me of that clueless mother at the side of a parade route who proudly states, "Look, everybody! They're all marching out of step except for my son!" See how stupid that sounds? Maybe it's time to stop doing the right (wing) thing and start doing the American thing. Just a thought.

* Here's an even simpler one. How come Kenny Boy Lay got another huge tax cut instead of a jail sentence?

* There seems to be a lot of partisan glee over the economy lately. I'll admit there are a lot of happy CEOs out there (see above) but meanwhile, 34 states are opting to slash Medicaid and poor children's health insurance coverage while people are falling off the unemployment benefit train - thus making them a non-statistic. So explain to me how compassionate is it to discount someone - even as a number in the statistical tables - because your policies have left him without hope of finding a job or healthcare?

Y'know, there are so many more questions like these that all Americans should be asking themselves. Maybe some of us can grab one of those iron skillets and bonk a few heads out of that patriotic daze that so many find themselves trapped in.

FULL POST

Good Riddance

2 January 2004, Tom Engelhardt, MotherJones.com

In a sense, our new Rome already lies in ruins without even an enemy fit to name to oppose us. And the true face of our home-grown regime in Washington is ever more visible. The visages on display aren't those of an emperor and his administrators, proconsuls and generals, but of so many dismantlers, strip-miners, and plunderers; less Augustus, more Jesse James (the real one, not the movie hero).

They may be building weapons for 2050, but they're plundering in Iraq and at home as if January 1 2004 were the beginning of the end of time. Having ushered into office the Halliburton (vice-)presidency, we now have a fitting "empire" to go with it. While empires must to some extent spread the wealth around, our proto-imperialists turn out to have the greed level and satiation point of so many malign children. Other than "must" and "mine," the words they -- and their corporate companions -- know best, it seems, are "now," "all," and "alone." It's a vocabulary that doesn't contain a future in it, not the sort of vocabulary with which to rule the world.

No matter how many times we insist that all we carry in our baggage train is "freedom" and "democracy" for the oppressed nations of the Earth, those elsewhere can see perfectly well that our saddlebags are full of grappling hooks and meat cleavers. Bad as 2003 was for us, it may not be long before it's looked upon as their global Enron Moment.

2003 was the year our emperor's men decided to use up as much as they could as fast as they could, though, thanks to our underachieving media, this can hardly be grasped here. The sad thing is that they are dismantling us, and what matters most to us in our country including our liberties -- and all under the deceptive name of "national security." They have an unerring eye for the weak and vulnerable and, on spotting them, set upon them like so many highwaymen.

Unfortunately, as representatives of insecurity rather than security, they have let loose forces for which they feel no responsibility. We are a nation of adults, living largely in denial, led by overgrown, malign children excited by the thought of sending other people's actual children, a whole well-led army of them, including the older "weekend warriors" of the reserves and the National Guard, off to do the impossible as well as the unjust. And this is happening in part because -- I believe -- they don't imagine war as carnage, but are energized by an especially shallow idea of war's "glory," just as the President has been thoroughly energized by the ludicrous idea that his is a "war presidency."

The term "chickenhawks," often used by critics, hardly catches this. It's true that Bush's first moments after the September 11th attacks -- now buried by media and memory -- were ones of flight, and so, undoubtedly, of shame and humiliation (which helps account for at least some of the exaggerated macho posturing -- "bring 'em on" -- that followed). Instead of stepping forward to lead a shocked nation in crisis by heading for Washington, he was shunted from a children's classroom in Florida westward to safety.

What "chickenhawks" doesn't catch, however, is both the immature mock solemnity and the fun of war play for them, something they first absorbed in their childhoods on screen and carry with them still. War for them -- as they avoided anything having to do with either the Vietnam War or opposition to it -- remains, I believe, a matter of toy soldiers, cowboys-and-Indians games, and glorious John Wayne-style movies in which the Marines advance, while the ambushing enemy falls before them and the Marine hymn wells up as The End flashes on screen.

In a similar way, the neocon utopians who dreamed up our distinctly unpeaceful Pax Americana in deepest, darkest Washington and out of whole cloth seem to have imagined global military domination as something akin to the board game Risk. They too were, after a fashion, Risk managers, seeing themselves rolling the dice for little weapons icons (most of which they controlled), oil-well icons (which they wanted) and strategic-country icons (which they needed). They were consummate game players. It just so happens our planet isn't a two-dimensional gameboard, but a confusing, bloody, resistant, complex place that exists in at least three dimensions, all unexpected.

I mean if you think I'm kidding -- about children playing games -- just remember that we have a President who, according to the Washington Post's Bob Woodward, keeps a "scorecard" in his desk drawer with the names/faces and personality sketches of al Qaeda adversaries (and assumedly Saddam) and then X's them out as they're brought in "dead or alive." Think tic-tac-toe here.

The president and his men, in short, have been living in a fantasy world that makes The Lord of the Rings look like an exercise in reality. Even before the Iraq war, this was worrisome to the adults who had to deal with them. This is why there was so much opposition within the top ranks of the military before the war; this was why there was no Pentagon planning whatsoever for the post-war moment (hey, you've just won the Iraq card in your game, now you fortify and move on); this was why, for instance, General Anthony Zinni, Vietnam veteran and former CentCom commander, who endorsed young George in the 2000 race, went into opposition to the administration; this is why a seething "intelligence community" has been in near revolt after watching our fantasists rejigger "intelligence" to make their "turn" come out right; this is why our great "adventure" in the Middle East pitched over into the nearest ditch.

2004 should be a fierce holding action for them. The question is -- as with Richard Nixon in 1972 -- can they make it through to November before the seams start to tear. They might be able to. But here's the thing: Sooner or later, the children will leave the stage and some set of adults will have to start picking up the pieces. If the 2004 election is theirs, however… well, sometimes there are just things, our planet included, too broken to fix.

FULL ARTICLE

News from 2001: Before the Towers Fell
5 March 2001, Leslie Wayne, The New York Times

During the presidential campaign last year, former President George Bush took time off from his son's race to call on Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a luxurious desert compound outside Riyadh to talk about American-Saudi business affairs.

Mr. Bush went as an ambassador of sorts, but not for his government. In the same way, Mr. Bush's secretary of state, James A. Baker III, recently met with a group of wealthy people at the elegant Lanesborough Hotel in London to explain the Florida vote count.

Traveling with the fanfare of dignitaries, Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were using their extensive government contacts to further their business interests as representatives of the Carlyle Group, a $12 billion private equity firm based in Washington that has parlayed a roster of former top-level government officials, largely from the Bush and Reagan administrations, into a moneymaking machine.

In a new spin on Washington's revolving door between business and government, where lobbying by former officials is restricted but soliciting investments is not, Carlyle has upped the ante and taken the practice global. Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker were accompanied on their trips by former Prime Minister John Major of Britain, another of Carlyle's political stars. With door-openers of this caliber, along with shrewd investment skills, Carlyle has gone from an unknown in the world of private equity to one of its biggest players. Private equity, which involves buying up companies in private deals and reselling them, is a high-end business open only to the very rich.

Over the last decade, the Carlyle empire has grown to span three continents and include investments in most corners of the world. It owns so many companies that it is now in effect one of the nation's biggest defense contractors and a force in global telecommunications. Its blue-chip investors include major banks and insurance companies, billion-dollar pension funds and wealthy investors from Abu Dhabi to Singapore.

In getting business for Carlyle, Mr. Bush has been impressive. His meeting with the crown prince was followed by a yacht cruise and private dinners with Saudi officials, including King Fahd, all on behalf of Carlyle, which has extensive interests in the Middle East.

And Mr. Bush led Carlyle's successful entry into South Korea, the fastest-growing economy in Asia. After his meetings with the prime minister and other government and business leaders, Carlyle won a tough competition for control of KorAm, one of Korea's few healthy banks.

The steady flow of politicians to lucrative private-sector jobs based on their government contacts is a familiar Washington tale. But in this case, it is being played out for more dollars, on a global stage, and in the world of private finance, where the minimal government rules prohibiting lobbying by former officials for a given period are not a factor. These rules say nothing about potential conflicts when former government officials use their connections and insights for financial gain, and they may attract more notice now that George W. Bush is president. Many of those involved with Carlyle, which invests largely in companies that do business with the government or are affected by government regulations, have ties to the Oval Office.

For instance, Frank C. Carlucci, a Reagan secretary of defense who as much as anyone is responsible for Carlyle's success, said he met in February with his old college classmate Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense, and Vice President Dick Cheney, himself a defense secretary under former President Bush, to talk about military matters -- at a time when Carlyle has several billion-dollar defense projects under consideration.

Carlyle officials contend that the firm's activities do not present any potential conflicts since Mr. Bush, Mr. Baker and other former Republican officials now at Carlyle -- including Mr. Carlucci, who is Carlyle's chairman, and Richard G. Darman, Mr. Bush's former budget director -- do not lobby the federal government. Carlyle executives point out that many corporations have former government officials as board members.

''Mr. Bush gives us no advice on what do with with the federal government,'' said David Rubenstein, the firm's founder and a former aide in the Carter White House. ''We've gone over backwards to make sure that we do no lobbying.''

Others, however, see little difference between potential conflicts involving lobbying and those involving investments.

''Carlyle is as deeply wired into the current administration as they can possibly be,'' said Charles Lewis, executive director of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit public interest group based in Washington. ''George Bush is getting money from private interests that have business before the government, while his son is president. And, in a really peculiar way, George W. Bush could, some day, benefit financially from his own administration's decisions, through his father's investments. The average American doesn't know that and, to me, that's a jaw-dropper.''

It is difficult to determine exactly how much money the senior Mr. Bush and Mr. Baker have made. Mr. Baker is a Carlyle partner, and Mr. Bush has the title senior adviser to its Asian activities. With a current market value of about $3.5 billion on Carlyle's equity and with the firm owned by 18 partners and one outside investor, Mr. Baker's Carlyle stake would be worth about $180 million if each partner held an equal stake. It is not known whether he has more or less than the other partners.

Unlike Mr. Baker, Mr. Bush has no ownership stake in Carlyle; he is an adviser and an investor and is compensated by obtaining stakes in Carlyle investments. Carlyle executives cited, for example, Mr. Bush's being allowed to put money he earns giving speeches for Carlyle into its investment funds. Mr. Bush generally receives $80,000 to $100,000 for a speech. He sits on no corporate boards other than Carlyle's.

Carlyle also gave the Bush family a hand in 1990 by putting George W. Bush, who was then struggling to find a career, on the board of a Carlyle subsidiary, Caterair, an airline-catering company.

From Carlyle's point of view, the involvement of Mr. Baker and the former president is invaluable.

''It punches up the brand awareness for us globally,'' said Daniel A. D'Aniello, a Carlyle managing director. ''We are greatly assisted by Baker and Bush. It shows that we are associated with people of the highest ethical standards.''

With $12 billion from investors, Carlyle claims to be the nation's largest private equity fund and makes money by investing in undervalued companies and reselling at a profit. These numbers put Carlyle in the same league as better-known private equity firms like Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Company and Forstmann-Little & Company.

Two hundred forty Carlyle employees are stationed throughout the world either raising money or finding ways to spend it. Carlyle has ownership stakes in 164 companies, which last year employed more than 70,000 people and generated $16 billion in revenues. About 450 institutions -- mainly large pension funds and banks -- are Carlyle investors.

The California state pension fund invested $305 million with Carlyle, and the Texas teachers pension fund -- whose board was appointed when George W. Bush was governor -- gave Carlyle $100 million to invest in November. Carlyle also works as a financial adviser to the Saudi government.

''Let's say Carlyle is going fund-raising in the Middle East and they bring Bush along,'' said David Snow, editor of Private Equity Central, a trade publication. ''He led the U.S. Army into that region. That will catch the attention of very wealthy investors in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fact that Bush is involved doesn't mean that Carlyle will make great investment decisions. But it will get them access to certain deals and certain countries that they might otherwise not have.''

One former Carlyle employee said, ''The firm understands that having Bush and Major around is like having movie stars around.''

Yet Carlyle's success is not just because of its high-powered connections. Carlyle has done well for its investors, returning an average of 34 percent a year over the last decade, in line with other private equity funds. It has done this by buying what it knows best -- companies that are regulated by the government. Nearly two-thirds of its investments are in defense and telecommunications companies, which are affected by shifts in government spending and policy.

Carlyle has become the nation's 11th largest defense contractor, owning companies that make tanks, aircraft wings and a broad array of other military equipment. It also owns health care companies, real estate, Internet companies, a bottling company and even Le Figaro, the French newspaper.

''Carlyle is one of the most successful fund-raising groups,'' said Mario L. Giannini, president of Hamilton Lane, a Philadelphia consultant to institutional investors. ''They have tremendous access and they have done very well with their money.''

And its access extends well beyond American shores. In Europe, Carlyle has assembled an advisory board that besides Mr. Major includes Karl Otto Pöhl, former president of German's Bundesbank, and the past or present chairmen of B.M.W., Hoffman-LaRoche, Nestlé, LVMH-Moët Hennessy, Louis Vuitton and Aerospatiale, the French Airbus partner.

Carlyle's Asia advisory board, which helps raise money and finds and reviews deals, includes former President Fidel V. Ramos of the Philippines, the former prime minister of Thailand and the executive director of the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority. The former South Korean prime minister Park Tae Joon was also an adviser to Carlyle.

This star power is a source of great pride for Carlyle and part of an acknowledged long-term strategy to associate the firm with brand-name politicians and business executives in order to attract more of the same -- along with their money, insights and connections. That said, Carlyle partners bristle at any suggestion that the firm's success is based only on high-powered schmoozing.

''If our track record was not good, people would not invest with us,'' said Mr. Rubenstein, the founding partner. ''No one would gives us money just because Mr. Bush is one of our advisers.''

On that point, others agree. ''People took potshots at Carlyle early on and tried to denigrate their investment credentials because they had all these government officials over there,'' said Bernard Aronson, managing partner at ACON Investments, a private equity firm in Washington. ''But that's sort of a myth. The all-hat-and-no-cattle has disappeared because they performed consistently, delivered excellent returns and have become global players.''

One of the people who put Carlyle on the map -- developing its riches and its image -- is Mr. Carlucci, who joined the firm in 1989 when it had engaged in a string of ill-fated ventures. He is credited with steering Carlyle into successful defense industry acquisitions -- just when other investors were shunning them -- and with using his seat on more than a dozen corporate boards to bring Carlyle deals and investors.

In an office adorned with photographs of Mr. Carlucci and the politically mighty -- he sits beneath an Oval Office picture of himself and Mr. Reagan -- Mr. Carlucci makes it clear that his extensive government and global ties are as fresh as ever.

''I know Rumsfeld extremely well,'' Mr. Carlucci said in an interview. ''We've been close friends throughout the years. We were college classmates.''

Pointing to a picture of the Chinese president, he said, ''There's a photo of me and Jiang Zemin. And there's me and the president of Taiwan.''

Right now, Carlyle is hoping that financing is provided for the $13.7 billion Crusader program. The Crusader is a heavy-duty tank made by a Carlyle portfolio company and other contractors. And Carlyle just lodged a complaint with the government after another of its portfolio companies lost a $4 billion contract to build a lightweight combat vehicle.

While Mr. Carlucci is open about his discussions with Mr. Rumsfeld on Pentagon policies, he said he never lobbies. ''I've made it clear that I don't lobby the defense industry,'' Mr. Carlucci said. ''I will give our Carlyle bankers advice on what they might do and who they should talk to. But I do not pick up the phone and say you should fund X, Y or Z.''

If Washington's revolving door brought Republicans to Carlyle during the Clinton presidency, now the firm is preparing for an onslaught of Democrats. The day these interviews took place at Carlyle's Washington office, Gene Sperling, one of the Clinton administration's top economic advisers, was in for a job interview.