In another case of "Short Attention Span Theater", we force ourselves to revisit the Bush I rationale for NOT finishing off Saddam. Time Magazine has recently removed this from its links, in true Soviet rewriting history style. Since Dubyah is intent on labeling those who call him on his lies as "revisionist historians" it is well to see what his father had to say about why he did not attempt to remove Saddam from power.
"While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf. Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under those circumstances, furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-cold war world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the U.N.'s mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
Truely, father knows best.
Thursday, July 31, 2003
Poindexter to Resign
I will reserve my glee at the notification that John Poindexter is going to resign. He was supposed to dismantle the Total Information Awareness program too - but all he did was change its name to Terrorist Information Awarness program (wouldn't want to have to invent a new acronym, would we?).
Is he really going to go? He shouldn't have been here in the first place.
"Admiral Poindexter first gained notoriety in the Iran-contra scandal during the Reagan administration, and more recently he oversaw a Pentagon program that proposed spying electronically on Americans to monitor potential terrorists.
Under that plan, Admiral Poindexter envisioned a program of sweeping electronic surveillance as a way of forestalling terrorism by tapping into computer databases to collect medical, travel, credit and financial records.
The current furor centered on an initiative called Policy Analysis Market. Under the plan, traders were to be able to begin registering on Friday to trade futures on developments in the Middle East as of Oct. 1 on a Web site of the Policy Analysis Market, which the Pentagon was operating with private partners."
This is what happens when you hire convicted felons for senior positions. One down, many more to go.
Is he really going to go? He shouldn't have been here in the first place.
"Admiral Poindexter first gained notoriety in the Iran-contra scandal during the Reagan administration, and more recently he oversaw a Pentagon program that proposed spying electronically on Americans to monitor potential terrorists.
Under that plan, Admiral Poindexter envisioned a program of sweeping electronic surveillance as a way of forestalling terrorism by tapping into computer databases to collect medical, travel, credit and financial records.
The current furor centered on an initiative called Policy Analysis Market. Under the plan, traders were to be able to begin registering on Friday to trade futures on developments in the Middle East as of Oct. 1 on a Web site of the Policy Analysis Market, which the Pentagon was operating with private partners."
This is what happens when you hire convicted felons for senior positions. One down, many more to go.
Bush In Free Fall
World in Conflict presents a very good analysis of current Bush administration weaknesses. Well worth a look.
No Child Left Behind - Except For Those that Can't Keep Up
In what is surely a predictable result of Bush's No 'Child Left Behind' program which is heavily oriented towards punishing poorly performing schools, the New York Times reports that schools are beginning to drop students who can't keep up to prevent "failing":
Growing numbers of students — most of them struggling academically — are being pushed out of New York City's school system and classified under bureaucratic categories that hide their failure to graduate.
Officially the city's dropout rate hovers around 20 percent. But critics say that if the students who are pushed out were included, that number could be 25 to 30 percent.
Given that this administration has shown a preference for show over substance it isn't surprising that the results of its policies often are just the opposite of the stated intent. The States have been saddled with the responsibility for administering this program - along with its expensive testing component - but have not been provided the money to do the job. So now the very students who provided the motivation for the legislation are being forced to suffer further so the legislation will appear to work. These kids used to be in failing schools; now they don't get to be in any school. Out of sight, out of mind.
Growing numbers of students — most of them struggling academically — are being pushed out of New York City's school system and classified under bureaucratic categories that hide their failure to graduate.
Officially the city's dropout rate hovers around 20 percent. But critics say that if the students who are pushed out were included, that number could be 25 to 30 percent.
Given that this administration has shown a preference for show over substance it isn't surprising that the results of its policies often are just the opposite of the stated intent. The States have been saddled with the responsibility for administering this program - along with its expensive testing component - but have not been provided the money to do the job. So now the very students who provided the motivation for the legislation are being forced to suffer further so the legislation will appear to work. These kids used to be in failing schools; now they don't get to be in any school. Out of sight, out of mind.
Dying in Iraq
Bob Herbert has a good piece in today's New York Times chastising the Bush administration for its dishonest policies that are costing so much in blood and money. In part:
The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But instead of using all the means available to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration became obsessed with the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the takeover of Iraq.
That is a very peculiar ordering of priorities.
The federal government issued public warnings this week after being alerted to potential new terror attacks against Americans by Al Qaeda, including the possibility of airline hijackings in the U.S. or overseas. President Bush said yesterday, "We're talking to foreign governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them the reality of the threat."
But even as the president was speaking, word was coming out that the Transportation Security Administration is trying to cut back its air marshals program to save money. The war in Iraq is costing scores of billions of dollars a month, and the president's tax cuts have grown so large they're casting shadows over generations to come. But we can't afford to fully fund a program to protect American airline passengers.
The United States was attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. But instead of using all the means available to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, the Bush administration became obsessed with the ouster of Saddam Hussein and the takeover of Iraq.
That is a very peculiar ordering of priorities.
The federal government issued public warnings this week after being alerted to potential new terror attacks against Americans by Al Qaeda, including the possibility of airline hijackings in the U.S. or overseas. President Bush said yesterday, "We're talking to foreign governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them the reality of the threat."
But even as the president was speaking, word was coming out that the Transportation Security Administration is trying to cut back its air marshals program to save money. The war in Iraq is costing scores of billions of dollars a month, and the president's tax cuts have grown so large they're casting shadows over generations to come. But we can't afford to fully fund a program to protect American airline passengers.
Wednesday, July 30, 2003
Bush Administration's Top 40 Lies About War and Terrorism
Check out this site about Bush administration lies. Gee, I know it's hard to believe, but give it a try.
Waxman Questions Rice
Representative Henry Waxman has written a remarkable official letter to Condi Rice questioning her complicity in the Niger Uranium debacle. It's hard to read this and not realize how twisted this whole thing is, but read it - it's really good.
Too Stupid to be a Good Liar
In his very odd press conference today, "President" Bush said:
“I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely,”
If that is so, why didn't one of the reproters present ask about this outlandish statement he made last week:
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in . And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."
Just in case you didn't notice - this whole statement is not true. In fact, it is so far from the truth as to be amazing. Why did no one call him on this? Not only did Saddam allow the inspectors in, but it was Bush that insisted they be withdrawn. The level of craziness here is truely unbelievable.
Can you hear me now?
“I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely,”
If that is so, why didn't one of the reproters present ask about this outlandish statement he made last week:
"The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in . And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful."
Just in case you didn't notice - this whole statement is not true. In fact, it is so far from the truth as to be amazing. Why did no one call him on this? Not only did Saddam allow the inspectors in, but it was Bush that insisted they be withdrawn. The level of craziness here is truely unbelievable.
Can you hear me now?
Rumsfeld Lies
Visit Rumsfeld Lies, a site devoted to exposing the self-serving dishonesty of our retread SecDef.
Bush on Rice
In an unusual (for him) live exchange with journalists reported today in which he said he accepts responsibility for the exaggerated claim about Iraq seeking to buy uranium from Africa, Bush also responded to critics of Condi Rice:
Bush strongly defended his aide Wednesday, saying she was an "honest fabulous person" and the United States was lucky to have her in government.
Do you think anyone will point out to him that "fabulous" means "resembling or suggesting a fable: of an incredible, astonishing, or exaggerated nature" and that a synonym is "ficticious"?
Sounds appropriate for Rice - and for the whole Bush propoganda machine - just fabulous.
Bush strongly defended his aide Wednesday, saying she was an "honest fabulous person" and the United States was lucky to have her in government.
Do you think anyone will point out to him that "fabulous" means "resembling or suggesting a fable: of an incredible, astonishing, or exaggerated nature" and that a synonym is "ficticious"?
Sounds appropriate for Rice - and for the whole Bush propoganda machine - just fabulous.
Security on the Cheap
I don't know why I continue to be surprised at the idiotic extremes of the Bush administration's policies. A story from MSNBC reports:
WASHINGTON, July 29 — Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don’t have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.
At the same time they are floating rumors of possible new terrorist attacks they decide to save money by pulling air marshals off the most vulnerable flights? Truely the lunatics are in charge of the assylum.
WASHINGTON, July 29 — Despite renewed warnings about possible airline hijackings, the Transportation Security Administration has alerted federal air marshals that as of Friday they will no longer be covering cross-country or international flights, MSNBC.com has learned. The decision to drop coverage on flights that many experts consider to be at the highest risk of attack apparently stems from a policy decision to rework schedules so that air marshals don’t have to incur the expense of staying overnight in hotels.
At the same time they are floating rumors of possible new terrorist attacks they decide to save money by pulling air marshals off the most vulnerable flights? Truely the lunatics are in charge of the assylum.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
What a Joke
The Pakistan Daily Times has this article that states a wonderful joke:
President George W. Bush said Tuesday that he could not grant a Saudi request to declassify sections of a congressional report into the September 11 attacks as it would “help the enemy.”
Saudi Arabia has asked for 28 pages of the report which involve the kingdom to be made public, and requested a meeting between Bush and top Saudi diplomat Prince Saud al-Faisal due to take place at around 1900 GMT Tuesday.
Bush said he had “absolutely have no qualms at all” about keeping the data secret, as he did not wish to prejudice an investigation into the 2001 attacks.
This is such a farce. The Bush administration can't afford for any information about how close they are to the Saudis and their money to be made public and neither can the Saudis. This "play" they are engaged in allows both parties to have the best of the situation - the Busies can pretend to keep secrets for the sake of national security and the Saudis can make a public cry to have the redacted pages made public - knowing full well that they won't be (and that they would likely be devestating if they were).
HEY - is American a great country or what?
President George W. Bush said Tuesday that he could not grant a Saudi request to declassify sections of a congressional report into the September 11 attacks as it would “help the enemy.”
Saudi Arabia has asked for 28 pages of the report which involve the kingdom to be made public, and requested a meeting between Bush and top Saudi diplomat Prince Saud al-Faisal due to take place at around 1900 GMT Tuesday.
Bush said he had “absolutely have no qualms at all” about keeping the data secret, as he did not wish to prejudice an investigation into the 2001 attacks.
This is such a farce. The Bush administration can't afford for any information about how close they are to the Saudis and their money to be made public and neither can the Saudis. This "play" they are engaged in allows both parties to have the best of the situation - the Busies can pretend to keep secrets for the sake of national security and the Saudis can make a public cry to have the redacted pages made public - knowing full well that they won't be (and that they would likely be devestating if they were).
HEY - is American a great country or what?
Cheney's Energy Task Force and the War on Iraq
Why is there almost nothing in the mainstream media about the documents from Cheney's Energy Task force that were released as a result of one of the lawsuits filed by Judicial Watch? These documents include maps of Iraq's oil fields and information about companies interested in Iraqi oil. What did this have to do with American energy planning in 2001? Good question. Read this interesting presentation of the subject. I think the Bushies are so consumed with Hubris that they don't even consider the possibility that they could be brought low.
The Ugly Future We Face
An article in the Mercury News raises an issue that SOB has shouted about before - the very real threat of the current generation of electronic voting machines that are being installed around the country:
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently got their hands on the source code -- the underlying programming instructions -- for a touch-screen voting system.
The flaws they discovered were stunning. The potential for company insiders and hackers to tamper with an election is alarming.
Their conclusion: ``... if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate.''
As if Florida 2000 wasn't bad enough!
Researchers at Johns Hopkins University recently got their hands on the source code -- the underlying programming instructions -- for a touch-screen voting system.
The flaws they discovered were stunning. The potential for company insiders and hackers to tamper with an election is alarming.
Their conclusion: ``... if we do not change the process of designing our voting systems, we will have no confidence that our election results will reflect the will of the electorate.''
As if Florida 2000 wasn't bad enough!
Too Good To Pass UP
This comment can be found on Atrios - a blog worth reading daily:
You Load Sixteen Words, and Whadda You Get?
Twenty-eight Pages and Deeper in Sh*t!
(apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford)
QuentinCompson
You Load Sixteen Words, and Whadda You Get?
Twenty-eight Pages and Deeper in Sh*t!
(apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford)
QuentinCompson
Time to Remember
"Get over it"? Not on your life. This is a visual reminder of how low the Republicans are willing to go.
The Self Inflicted Wound
Read Billmon's excellent essay on the circular reasoning involved in justifying the war on Iraq. He concludes:
In the end, America will have to leave Iraq, leaving behind an unstable land filled with uncertainty and violence -- in other words, Iraq as it has always been, and as it may continue to be for many decades. But by putting the occupation under U.N. control and the U.N. flag now, the administration could at least make the transition less painful, saving many lives and much treasure at the expense of a considerable loss of face.
That, however, would require a more fundamental revaluation of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, and in the war on terrorism. It would also mean admitting a mistake. So it won't be done. But with all their brave talk about crucial battles, the neocons can only try to obscure the fact that the war in Iraq is entirely a self-inflicted wound -- and that they're the ones who inflicted it.
And I ask again, will anyone pay for this? And if not, why not?
In the end, America will have to leave Iraq, leaving behind an unstable land filled with uncertainty and violence -- in other words, Iraq as it has always been, and as it may continue to be for many decades. But by putting the occupation under U.N. control and the U.N. flag now, the administration could at least make the transition less painful, saving many lives and much treasure at the expense of a considerable loss of face.
That, however, would require a more fundamental revaluation of U.S. strategy in the Middle East, and in the war on terrorism. It would also mean admitting a mistake. So it won't be done. But with all their brave talk about crucial battles, the neocons can only try to obscure the fact that the war in Iraq is entirely a self-inflicted wound -- and that they're the ones who inflicted it.
And I ask again, will anyone pay for this? And if not, why not?
The High Cost of Felons on the Payroll
This Bush administration has probably hired more convicted felons than any in history. One, whose job performance has been a lightning rod for controversy is former Rear Admiral John Poindexter, a significant executive at DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency). This is the same Poindexter who was Ollie North's boss and was convicted of lying to congress about the Iran Contra affair. His conviction was overturned by the current President's father (hey, what are friends for?). He has already been asked by congress to kill one program - TIA (Total Information Awareness). His response was to simply rename the program and continue.
Today he is front and center in the news again. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who is under great pressure at the moment, announced that he was cancelling the latest "bright" idea from Poindexter's shop. As reported in the Financial Times:
The Pentagon will abandon a controversial plan to set up an online futures exchange that would have allowed traders to place bets on forthcoming terrorist activities, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, said on Tuesday.
The decision was made after John Warner, the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, phoned the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the Pentagon's cutting-edge research laboratory, to complain.
Mr Warner and Tony Tether, Darpa's director, "mutually agreed that this thing should be stopped", Mr Warner said.
The futures market - which critics said was under the control of the Pentagon's information awareness office, headed by retired admiral John Poindexter - would have allowed speculators to buy futures on potential attacks and other destabilising events, such as assassinations, through internet accounts. The programme would have focused at first on the Middle East.
This whole thing is so "Dr. Strangelove" that it is hard to believe. If Poindexter keeps his job after this, somehting is really wrong. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - we know things are really wrong. Poindexter will probably get a promotion just so the Bushies can prove they can do whatever they want. What was I thinking?
Today he is front and center in the news again. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, who is under great pressure at the moment, announced that he was cancelling the latest "bright" idea from Poindexter's shop. As reported in the Financial Times:
The Pentagon will abandon a controversial plan to set up an online futures exchange that would have allowed traders to place bets on forthcoming terrorist activities, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, said on Tuesday.
The decision was made after John Warner, the powerful Republican chairman of the Senate armed services committee, phoned the director of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), the Pentagon's cutting-edge research laboratory, to complain.
Mr Warner and Tony Tether, Darpa's director, "mutually agreed that this thing should be stopped", Mr Warner said.
The futures market - which critics said was under the control of the Pentagon's information awareness office, headed by retired admiral John Poindexter - would have allowed speculators to buy futures on potential attacks and other destabilising events, such as assassinations, through internet accounts. The programme would have focused at first on the Middle East.
This whole thing is so "Dr. Strangelove" that it is hard to believe. If Poindexter keeps his job after this, somehting is really wrong. Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot - we know things are really wrong. Poindexter will probably get a promotion just so the Bushies can prove they can do whatever they want. What was I thinking?
Wolfowitz Pounded by Senators
The New York Times reports that Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was not well received in his appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He and President Bush's budget director, Joshua B. Bolten, were both challenged for lack of candor, even by Republican Senators:
"Because of some combination of bureaucratic inertia, political caution and unrealistic expectations left over from before the war, we do not appear to be confident about our course in Iraq," Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who heads the committee, said in a statement.
Other Republicans were equally blunt. "You and Mr. Bolten need to be more forthright in how long and how much," Senator George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, told Mr. Wolfowitz.
And Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, accused Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bush administration of "shifting the justification of what we're doing there" from weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein's tyrannical three-decade rule.
I'm sorry, but I just love seeing these pompous, self-righteous types being hammered. If both congress and journalists develop a backbone at the same time we might actually have a fighting chance of getting our country back.
"Because of some combination of bureaucratic inertia, political caution and unrealistic expectations left over from before the war, we do not appear to be confident about our course in Iraq," Senator Richard G. Lugar, the Indiana Republican who heads the committee, said in a statement.
Other Republicans were equally blunt. "You and Mr. Bolten need to be more forthright in how long and how much," Senator George V. Voinovich, an Ohio Republican, told Mr. Wolfowitz.
And Senator Lincoln D. Chafee, a Rhode Island Republican, accused Mr. Wolfowitz and the Bush administration of "shifting the justification of what we're doing there" from weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein's tyrannical three-decade rule.
I'm sorry, but I just love seeing these pompous, self-righteous types being hammered. If both congress and journalists develop a backbone at the same time we might actually have a fighting chance of getting our country back.
Counterpunch
And while we're at it, visit Counter Punch. your basic left wing, aggressively beyond liberal, website. Recently they revisit Florida 2000:
George W. Bush is president today because the votes counted in Florida's presidential election did not match the ballots cast by the state's voters. But the outcome in Florida--which determined the presidency--was not decided by hanging chads, recounts, or intervention by the Supreme Court.
Al Gore lost Florida's presidential vote because electoral officials tossed into the trashcan as invalid more than one out of every ten ballots cast by African-Americans throughout the state. In some counties, nearly 25 percent of ballots cast by blacks were set aside as invalid. In contrast, officials rejected only about one out of every fifty ballots cast by whites statewide.
George W. Bush is president today because the votes counted in Florida's presidential election did not match the ballots cast by the state's voters. But the outcome in Florida--which determined the presidency--was not decided by hanging chads, recounts, or intervention by the Supreme Court.
Al Gore lost Florida's presidential vote because electoral officials tossed into the trashcan as invalid more than one out of every ten ballots cast by African-Americans throughout the state. In some counties, nearly 25 percent of ballots cast by blacks were set aside as invalid. In contrast, officials rejected only about one out of every fifty ballots cast by whites statewide.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Yellow Times
For a real change of pace read Yellow Times. It's not your average left wing web site. Tres cool.
Condi is either a serial liar or staggeringly incompetent. Either way, she should be given the boot. Immediately.
The title above is the sentiment expressed by Hammerdown. I concur.
Wolfowitz: Dumb and Dumber
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has a reputation for being a very bright guy, but lately he has been putting his foot in his mouth almost every time he opens it. Maybe this results from going from being a cheerleader for simplistic hypothetical neocon ideas about how good a war with Iraq would be to being an apologist for the indefensible actual horror those ideas created. Only last month, in an interview in Vanity Fair, Wolfowitz explained that the focus on WMDs was simply rhetorical:
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason. . ."
So the war wasn't really about Saddam's supposed horrible weapons, that was just a good excuse that "everyone could agree on". Do you hear that? Did he even realize how such a statement undercuts the scary warnings issued by Bush, Rice, Rumsfield, Powell, and a host of other administration puppets? Right Wing apologists such as National Review are attempting to make Wolfowitz's statement's palatable, but the truth seems to be that he can't help but tell a truth that doesn't do the Bushies any good.
Only last week, while returning from a trip to Iraq, he said that the issue of WMDs was "historical":
"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him.
Now the capper. In this morning's Washington Post, on Fox News he was asked about the ongoing killing in Iraq, and replied:
"It is a sacrifice that is going to make our children and our grandchildren safer because the battle to win the peace in Iraq now is the central battle in the war on terrorism."
Now, how exactly is this the "central battle in the war on terrorism"? I mean, after all, none of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Iraqi. That operation was a Saudi job - planned by Saudis, financed by Saudis, and largely executed by Saudis (with a little Egyptian help). No Iraqi expertise, money, intelligence, or participation. But that doesn't matter, after explaining that intelligence in such matters is always "murky" he explains exactly how Iraq is realted to Osama bin Laden - and believe me this is a treat:
He linked bin Laden to Iraq by saying that the al Qaeda leader first called for the death of Americans because they were stationed in Saudi Arabia to carry out flights over southern Iraq, as part of Washington's post-Gulf War policy. He went on to say that the killings of 19 Air Force personnel in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 17 Navy sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 would not have happened if the United States had not been engaged against Iraq.
Note he didn't mention 9/11 but that is next on the list of Osama's atrocities, and like the others, follows from Osama's anger over U.S. forces being stationed in the Muslim holy land. And what he says is exactly correct - the terrorist attacks resulted from Arab anger at U.S. meddling in their countries and would not have happened if the United States had not been engaged against Iraq. In other words, the policies of Bush I are the root cause of 9/11. How else can this be read?
So, are you following this? Does it make sense that when we are attacked by Saudis who are angry at us basing soldiers in their country while we make war on Iraq, our response is to ignore the Saudis and make more war on Iraq? Honestly, I believe Wolfowitz has lost his mind. These people are all reasoning in circles. The scarry thing is that mainstream journalists are still not calling them on this shit.
Here are some important questions to consider:
(1) why did Saddam Hussein go from being a valued ally to being the worst thing since Hitler - almost overnight?
(2) why did the Bush I administration not try to discourage Saddam from attacking Kuait when we knew what he was up to?
(3) why did the Bush I administration lie to the Saudis by claiming that Saddam had troops massing on their borders in order to frighten them into letting the
U.S. accept the job of protecting them against a phantom threat?
(4) why did the House of Saud refuse Osama's offer of his Mujahadeen fighters to protect them?
(5) who armed and trained Osama's Mujahadeen fighters?
(6) who armed and trained the Taliban?
(7) why was India informed before 9/11 that the U.S. was going to attack Afghanistan, and when?
(8) why was the war with Iraq planned years before 9/11? (hint: see anything related to PNAC)
(9) why were all members of the bin Laden family allowed to leave the U.S. after 9/11 without having to be interviewed by the FBI?
(10) why are the Saudis still off limits in any terrorism investigation?
(11) why are the Pakistanis off limits in any terrorism investigation?
(12) who is actually profiting from the war with Iraq?
(13) who is profiting from the war on terror?
(14) who is profiting from the war on drugs and how does it relate to the 'war on terror'?
(15) Why are we putting up with this shit?
Really, why?
I deliberately didn't include links for any of the previous questions because there are so many good sources for them. Search and enjoy. Also, if you are a book kind of person, read Robert Baer's Sleeping With the Enemy: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Oil - average Amazon customer review - 5 stars.
"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason. . ."
So the war wasn't really about Saddam's supposed horrible weapons, that was just a good excuse that "everyone could agree on". Do you hear that? Did he even realize how such a statement undercuts the scary warnings issued by Bush, Rice, Rumsfield, Powell, and a host of other administration puppets? Right Wing apologists such as National Review are attempting to make Wolfowitz's statement's palatable, but the truth seems to be that he can't help but tell a truth that doesn't do the Bushies any good.
Only last week, while returning from a trip to Iraq, he said that the issue of WMDs was "historical":
"I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction," Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him.
Now the capper. In this morning's Washington Post, on Fox News he was asked about the ongoing killing in Iraq, and replied:
"It is a sacrifice that is going to make our children and our grandchildren safer because the battle to win the peace in Iraq now is the central battle in the war on terrorism."
Now, how exactly is this the "central battle in the war on terrorism"? I mean, after all, none of the terrorists responsible for 9/11 were Iraqi. That operation was a Saudi job - planned by Saudis, financed by Saudis, and largely executed by Saudis (with a little Egyptian help). No Iraqi expertise, money, intelligence, or participation. But that doesn't matter, after explaining that intelligence in such matters is always "murky" he explains exactly how Iraq is realted to Osama bin Laden - and believe me this is a treat:
He linked bin Laden to Iraq by saying that the al Qaeda leader first called for the death of Americans because they were stationed in Saudi Arabia to carry out flights over southern Iraq, as part of Washington's post-Gulf War policy. He went on to say that the killings of 19 Air Force personnel in the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia and the 17 Navy sailors on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000 would not have happened if the United States had not been engaged against Iraq.
Note he didn't mention 9/11 but that is next on the list of Osama's atrocities, and like the others, follows from Osama's anger over U.S. forces being stationed in the Muslim holy land. And what he says is exactly correct - the terrorist attacks resulted from Arab anger at U.S. meddling in their countries and would not have happened if the United States had not been engaged against Iraq. In other words, the policies of Bush I are the root cause of 9/11. How else can this be read?
So, are you following this? Does it make sense that when we are attacked by Saudis who are angry at us basing soldiers in their country while we make war on Iraq, our response is to ignore the Saudis and make more war on Iraq? Honestly, I believe Wolfowitz has lost his mind. These people are all reasoning in circles. The scarry thing is that mainstream journalists are still not calling them on this shit.
Here are some important questions to consider:
(1) why did Saddam Hussein go from being a valued ally to being the worst thing since Hitler - almost overnight?
(2) why did the Bush I administration not try to discourage Saddam from attacking Kuait when we knew what he was up to?
(3) why did the Bush I administration lie to the Saudis by claiming that Saddam had troops massing on their borders in order to frighten them into letting the
U.S. accept the job of protecting them against a phantom threat?
(4) why did the House of Saud refuse Osama's offer of his Mujahadeen fighters to protect them?
(5) who armed and trained Osama's Mujahadeen fighters?
(6) who armed and trained the Taliban?
(7) why was India informed before 9/11 that the U.S. was going to attack Afghanistan, and when?
(8) why was the war with Iraq planned years before 9/11? (hint: see anything related to PNAC)
(9) why were all members of the bin Laden family allowed to leave the U.S. after 9/11 without having to be interviewed by the FBI?
(10) why are the Saudis still off limits in any terrorism investigation?
(11) why are the Pakistanis off limits in any terrorism investigation?
(12) who is actually profiting from the war with Iraq?
(13) who is profiting from the war on terror?
(14) who is profiting from the war on drugs and how does it relate to the 'war on terror'?
(15) Why are we putting up with this shit?
Really, why?
I deliberately didn't include links for any of the previous questions because there are so many good sources for them. Search and enjoy. Also, if you are a book kind of person, read Robert Baer's Sleeping With the Enemy: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Oil - average Amazon customer review - 5 stars.
Sunday, July 27, 2003
It's All Clinton's Fault. NOT
Now with all the finger pointing about who knew what and when, it seems like the right time to recommend The Age of Sacred Terror by Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, a book devoted to revealling what was actually known and done about terrorism during the Clinton administration. For those who think that Osama bin Laden just materiallized around 9/11 this book should prove a revelation - or series of revelations. From Amazon's review:
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon began working on this book shortly after leaving the National Security Council, where, as director and senior director for counterterrorism, they watched the rise of al-Qaeda and helped coordinate America’s fight against Usama bin Laden and his organization. They warned in articles and interviews about the appearance of a new breed of terrorists who were determined to kill on the grand scale. More than a year before September 11, 2001, they began writing The Age of Sacred Terror to sound the alarm for a nation that had not recognized the gravest threat of our time.
It is well to remember that the authors tried to warn the incomming Bush administration of the dangers posed by al-Qaeda, only to be brushed off by Condi Rice and others. John Ashcroft actually cut the Justice Deptartment's budget for counter terrorism. But, as all conservative, wrapped in the flag, true Americans know, it was all Clinton's fault.
Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon began working on this book shortly after leaving the National Security Council, where, as director and senior director for counterterrorism, they watched the rise of al-Qaeda and helped coordinate America’s fight against Usama bin Laden and his organization. They warned in articles and interviews about the appearance of a new breed of terrorists who were determined to kill on the grand scale. More than a year before September 11, 2001, they began writing The Age of Sacred Terror to sound the alarm for a nation that had not recognized the gravest threat of our time.
It is well to remember that the authors tried to warn the incomming Bush administration of the dangers posed by al-Qaeda, only to be brushed off by Condi Rice and others. John Ashcroft actually cut the Justice Deptartment's budget for counter terrorism. But, as all conservative, wrapped in the flag, true Americans know, it was all Clinton's fault.
If it's 'Murky' is it still 'Intelligence?'
Now the voices that before the war with Iraq were full of certainty are singing a different tune. This from CNN:
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who is the architect of the White House policy on Iraq, said Sunday that "murky" intelligence guides much of the administration's anti-terrorism policy.
He was saying this as a way of excusing the administration of any responsibility to have foreseen or prevented the 9/11 attacks, but instead, this line of
reasoning supports the contention that the Bushies don't really know what they are doing. Not a comforting thought.
Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who is the architect of the White House policy on Iraq, said Sunday that "murky" intelligence guides much of the administration's anti-terrorism policy.
He was saying this as a way of excusing the administration of any responsibility to have foreseen or prevented the 9/11 attacks, but instead, this line of
reasoning supports the contention that the Bushies don't really know what they are doing. Not a comforting thought.
America Bushwhacked
There's a new Scott Ritter book Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America. Not much new for those of us who have followed this story closely, but it's good to have someone with Ritter's expertise and credibility lay out the facts - as apposed to the fantasy- so well.
Saturday, July 26, 2003
'Who profits from erasing Iraq's debt?'
An interesting piece by Heather Wokush in The Smirking Chimp on the implications of forgiving Iraq's 184 billion dollar debt questions 'that dictatorships like Uzbekistan and Pakistan can cash in on the "war on terror," while fledgling democracies defying Washington's unilateral excesses are punished.
. . .
But who really benefits from massive cash infusions to Iraq, estimated to be costing US taxpayers $3.9 billion every month? And who would benefit from a hasty write-off of Iraq's past debt?
. . .
Halliburton, the Texan oil company tied to US vice president Dick Cheney, is making a killing on subsidiary contracts to Iraq, doing everything from repairing oil wells to providing housing for US troops. Corporate cronies will also benefit from Bush administration plans to privatize Iraq's 100 state-owned firms, probably at fire sale prices.
No doubt the lack of financial transparency in today's Iraq creates unprecedented opportunities. Some US firms have already been charged with bilking millions of dollars in bogus rebuilding contracts, while the integrity of the US-UK controlled fund slated to recover foreign Iraqi assets has been called into question'.
What really bothers me is that no one seems to be feeling any kind of shame at profiting from this kind of thing. It is almost as though making a profit was in itself sufficient to justify any behavior - even death and destruction on a massive scale. Have we really come to that?
. . .
But who really benefits from massive cash infusions to Iraq, estimated to be costing US taxpayers $3.9 billion every month? And who would benefit from a hasty write-off of Iraq's past debt?
. . .
Halliburton, the Texan oil company tied to US vice president Dick Cheney, is making a killing on subsidiary contracts to Iraq, doing everything from repairing oil wells to providing housing for US troops. Corporate cronies will also benefit from Bush administration plans to privatize Iraq's 100 state-owned firms, probably at fire sale prices.
No doubt the lack of financial transparency in today's Iraq creates unprecedented opportunities. Some US firms have already been charged with bilking millions of dollars in bogus rebuilding contracts, while the integrity of the US-UK controlled fund slated to recover foreign Iraqi assets has been called into question'.
What really bothers me is that no one seems to be feeling any kind of shame at profiting from this kind of thing. It is almost as though making a profit was in itself sufficient to justify any behavior - even death and destruction on a massive scale. Have we really come to that?
Bush's Position on Global Warming Called 'Ludicrous'
Not that it is any surprise to most well informed persons of reasonble intelligence, but experts believe the Bush administration is way off the mark in its refusal to address the problem of global warming. According to an AP piece reported by Common Dreams:
"International experts at a gathering of more than 1,000 scientists studying climate change and the future of mankind say the threat of global warming is real and getting worse.
One leading researcher at the weeklong conference said it was “ludicrous” that the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the increasing dangers of greenhouse gases."
Of course, we remember that our president - who, after all, has degrees from both Yale and Harvard - decreed that the science involved in global warming research was "flawed". As if he would know.
"International experts at a gathering of more than 1,000 scientists studying climate change and the future of mankind say the threat of global warming is real and getting worse.
One leading researcher at the weeklong conference said it was “ludicrous” that the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge the increasing dangers of greenhouse gases."
Of course, we remember that our president - who, after all, has degrees from both Yale and Harvard - decreed that the science involved in global warming research was "flawed". As if he would know.
Friday, July 25, 2003
The Big Bribe
According to the Washington Post:
President Bush paid a quick visit today to two states that he lost in the 2000 election but hopes to carry next year, promising that the tax cuts he has championed will soon begin to create more jobs while pressing Congress to extend the expanded child tax credit to the lowest-income Americans.
Remember what Ross Perot had to say about Bush Senior's promises of tax cuts? He said, "They're trying to bribe you with your own money." Given how little most Americans are going to get in the way of tax relief this Bush must believe that most Americans can be bought cheaply.
President Bush paid a quick visit today to two states that he lost in the 2000 election but hopes to carry next year, promising that the tax cuts he has championed will soon begin to create more jobs while pressing Congress to extend the expanded child tax credit to the lowest-income Americans.
Remember what Ross Perot had to say about Bush Senior's promises of tax cuts? He said, "They're trying to bribe you with your own money." Given how little most Americans are going to get in the way of tax relief this Bush must believe that most Americans can be bought cheaply.
9/11 Report Fallout
We can only speculate now, and the N. Y. Times does:
The report today on intelligence failures may force the Bush administration to confront a vexing question that the White House thought it put to rest months ago: how best to prevent another terrorist attack.
The findings, providing an even more damning indictment of the intelligence community than many had predicted, are already prompting fresh debate over whether the federal government should create a national intelligence czar or even strip the F.B.I. of its domestic intelligence duties in favor of a wholly new agency.
A lot can be learned from watching how the Bush administration responds to this report. It can use it as ammunition to continue blaming the FBI and CIA for its own failures, it can go into defense mode about any implied criticism, or it can attempt to realistically assess the findings. Based on past performance, what is most likely?
The report today on intelligence failures may force the Bush administration to confront a vexing question that the White House thought it put to rest months ago: how best to prevent another terrorist attack.
The findings, providing an even more damning indictment of the intelligence community than many had predicted, are already prompting fresh debate over whether the federal government should create a national intelligence czar or even strip the F.B.I. of its domestic intelligence duties in favor of a wholly new agency.
A lot can be learned from watching how the Bush administration responds to this report. It can use it as ammunition to continue blaming the FBI and CIA for its own failures, it can go into defense mode about any implied criticism, or it can attempt to realistically assess the findings. Based on past performance, what is most likely?
Krugman Slams Greenspan
In his new Times piece Paul Krugman turns his critical light on Alan Greenspan's complicity in the current economic mess:
Let's not forget that back in 2001, Mr. Greenspan lent crucial political aid to the first Bush tax cut, arguing that such a cut was necessary to prevent, yes, excessive budget surpluses and too rapid a payoff of the federal government's debt. He should have known better _ it wasn't hard, even then, to figure out that those huge projected surpluses were largely fantasy. But he tied himself in knots to find a way to give his political friends what they wanted.
Another one bites the dust.
Let's not forget that back in 2001, Mr. Greenspan lent crucial political aid to the first Bush tax cut, arguing that such a cut was necessary to prevent, yes, excessive budget surpluses and too rapid a payoff of the federal government's debt. He should have known better _ it wasn't hard, even then, to figure out that those huge projected surpluses were largely fantasy. But he tied himself in knots to find a way to give his political friends what they wanted.
Another one bites the dust.
Our Confused Veep
In a speech yesterday at AEI Vice President Dick Cheney began his remarks by wishing the audience "Good Morning" and then "Good Afternoon to all of you." I guess if you spend all your time hidding away in a secret secure location you get a little out of touch with the real world and don't even know what time of day it is.
Joshua Mica marshal has a great piece that dissects the Veep's belief structure and behavior. He concludes:
Cheney's bad judgment is akin to Trent Lott's ugly history on race: Everyone sort of knew it was there, only no one ever really took notice until it was pointed out in a way that was difficult to ignore. Cheney is lucky; as vice president, he can't be fired. But his terrible judgment will, at some point, become impossible even for the Beltway crowd not to see.
Joshua Mica marshal has a great piece that dissects the Veep's belief structure and behavior. He concludes:
Cheney's bad judgment is akin to Trent Lott's ugly history on race: Everyone sort of knew it was there, only no one ever really took notice until it was pointed out in a way that was difficult to ignore. Cheney is lucky; as vice president, he can't be fired. But his terrible judgment will, at some point, become impossible even for the Beltway crowd not to see.
The Ugly Future
We all have to get ready to fight Black Box Voting. The push for adopting simplistic electronic voting machines that don't afford either a paper audit trail or an independent review of their internal programmed algorythm is a very bad portent for the future of democracy in America.
Thursday, July 24, 2003
The Long Delayed 9/11 Report With More Questions Than Answers
And now, more than ever, we have to ask, why is this administration hiding the Saudi involvement in 9/11? In the Congressional report we learn:
THE LONG-DELAYED 900-page report also contains potentially explosive new evidence suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, a key associate of two of the hijackers, may have been a Saudi-government agent, sources tell NEWSWEEK. The report documents extensive ties between al-Bayoumi and the hijackers. But the bureau never kept tabs on al-Bayoumi—despite receiving prior information he was a secret Saudi agent, the report says. In January 2000, al-Bayoumi had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles—and then went directly to a restaurant where he met future hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, whom he took back with him to San Diego. (Al-Bayoumi later arranged for the men to get an apartment next to his and fronted them their first two months rent.)
Protecting the House of Saud couldn't have anything to do with the long term business relationships between both the senior and junior Bush, could it? Nawww!
THE LONG-DELAYED 900-page report also contains potentially explosive new evidence suggesting that Omar al-Bayoumi, a key associate of two of the hijackers, may have been a Saudi-government agent, sources tell NEWSWEEK. The report documents extensive ties between al-Bayoumi and the hijackers. But the bureau never kept tabs on al-Bayoumi—despite receiving prior information he was a secret Saudi agent, the report says. In January 2000, al-Bayoumi had a meeting at the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles—and then went directly to a restaurant where he met future hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, whom he took back with him to San Diego. (Al-Bayoumi later arranged for the men to get an apartment next to his and fronted them their first two months rent.)
Protecting the House of Saud couldn't have anything to do with the long term business relationships between both the senior and junior Bush, could it? Nawww!
You Know It's A Bad Day When . . .
Bush and company are in trouble for sure. When even USA Today won't drop it, you know the State of the Union exaggerations are a real story. 'Bout time. And this from the AP.
The War on Terrorism Cancels Out the War on Drugs
The Christian Science Monitor reports that since the U. S. military "freed" Afghanistan from the Taliban's control, growth of poppies and production of heroin has soared:
Afghan farmers are producing a bumper crop of poppies this year, despite a ban imposed by President Hamid Karzai's government, and just three years after the Taliban clamped down on cultivation.
The resurgence of this plant - used to make heroin - could unravel the relationships between warlords and the US military that have brought a modicum of peace to Afghanistan.
Poppy cultivation could not happen without the knowledge of powerful warlords who still control most of Afghanistan with their loyal militias.
There is so much money in drug trafficking that the U. S. will be hard pressed to match its influence. This has always been the problem when trying to discourage drug trafficking. Where else can folks make that kind of money? What else does Afghanistan have going for it?
Afghan farmers are producing a bumper crop of poppies this year, despite a ban imposed by President Hamid Karzai's government, and just three years after the Taliban clamped down on cultivation.
The resurgence of this plant - used to make heroin - could unravel the relationships between warlords and the US military that have brought a modicum of peace to Afghanistan.
Poppy cultivation could not happen without the knowledge of powerful warlords who still control most of Afghanistan with their loyal militias.
There is so much money in drug trafficking that the U. S. will be hard pressed to match its influence. This has always been the problem when trying to discourage drug trafficking. Where else can folks make that kind of money? What else does Afghanistan have going for it?
A Sign of Life in Congress
The N. Y. Times reports this morning about a surprisingly strong move opposing the Bush administration's FCC agenda:
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation today to block a new rule supported by the Bush administration that would permit the nation's largest television networks to grow bigger by owning more stations.
The vote, which was 400 to 21, sets the stage for a rare confrontation between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House, because there is strong support in the Senate for similar measures, which seek to roll back last month's decision by the Federal Communications Commission to raise the limit on the number of television stations a network can own. The F.C.C. has ruled that a single company can own television stations reaching 45 percent of the nation's households, but the House measure would return the ownership cap to 35 percent.
If you are one of the many thousands who flooded their representative's offices with letters, email, and faxes on this issue - congratulations. We seem to have made a difference. Let's keep it up. These guys may grow a backbone after all.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed legislation today to block a new rule supported by the Bush administration that would permit the nation's largest television networks to grow bigger by owning more stations.
The vote, which was 400 to 21, sets the stage for a rare confrontation between the Republican-controlled Congress and the White House, because there is strong support in the Senate for similar measures, which seek to roll back last month's decision by the Federal Communications Commission to raise the limit on the number of television stations a network can own. The F.C.C. has ruled that a single company can own television stations reaching 45 percent of the nation's households, but the House measure would return the ownership cap to 35 percent.
If you are one of the many thousands who flooded their representative's offices with letters, email, and faxes on this issue - congratulations. We seem to have made a difference. Let's keep it up. These guys may grow a backbone after all.
Wednesday, July 23, 2003
A Dose of the Truth
For a good dose of what is real, read William Rivers Pitt's review of recent history.
Time to Revive the Draft?
With our main troop strength over commited in Iraq and in numerous bases around the world, while various potential threats and 'opportunites' loom (Liberia, North Korea, etc) would it really be a surprise if the government considered reinstating the draft? What would the public response be to that I wonder? The Bush idiots are in a peculiar position. Without the draft they don't have the manpower to pursue their agenda. With the draft they revive an issue that killed the political career of Lyndon Johnson and would no doubt do the same for Dubyah. Such an interesting conundrum.
Bush "Celebrates" the Deaths of Saddam's Sons
I am SO ready for Bush to 'celebrate' something that doesn't stink of death.
Yet Another Lie
In the ongoing series of versions and revisions about how the Niger Uranium story got in the State of the Union Address a new layer was added this morning when Stephen Hadley, a Deputy National Security Advisor (another of Condi Rice's aides) stepped forward to accept responsibility for not removing the charge from the speech even though he had received multiple warnings that the information was suspect:
Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together.
Sure, I belive that. Don't you? It just 'slipped' his mind. And then Dubyah has the gall to say he has total confidence in this dunce.
Hadley suggested that details from the memos and phone call had slipped from his attention as the State of the Union was being put together.
Sure, I belive that. Don't you? It just 'slipped' his mind. And then Dubyah has the gall to say he has total confidence in this dunce.
10 Questions for Dick Cheney
Dennis Kucinich and collegues pose some difficult questions for the elusive Veep. I would love to see his response - as if.
A Divided Message
While there is a lot of backpeddling on the Niger/Uranium claims in the State of the Union Address, the White House website still includes claims that have been pretty much disproved:
The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.
Did these guys just forget about their own website?
The danger is grave and growing. The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons and is rebuilding facilities to make more. It could launch a biological or chemical attack 45 minutes after the order is given. The regime is seeking a nuclear bomb -- and, with fissile material, could build one within a year.
Did these guys just forget about their own website?
Bush on the Ropes?
An article in Capitol Hill Blue indicates that Republicans now recognize that Dubyah is in trouble:
For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, rank-and-file Republicans say they are worried about President Bush's re-election chances based on the feeble economy, the rising death toll in Iraq and questions about his credibility.
Geez. I just gotta ask, why would rank and file Republicans want Bush to be re-elected - given the feeble economy, the rising death toll in Iraq and questions about his credibility? How stupid can you be?
For the first time since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, rank-and-file Republicans say they are worried about President Bush's re-election chances based on the feeble economy, the rising death toll in Iraq and questions about his credibility.
Geez. I just gotta ask, why would rank and file Republicans want Bush to be re-elected - given the feeble economy, the rising death toll in Iraq and questions about his credibility? How stupid can you be?
Starving the Government
Republican tax fanatic Grover Norquist is famous for having said that he wanted to starve the Federal Government until it was small enough to drown in the bath. The L. A. Times has a story that demonstrates one aspect of the human cost of this starvation. While the Congressional Report into security failures leading up to 9/11 is due to be released Friday and is expected to be highly critical of the FBI, the Times story shows how difficult it is to support a highly professional agency when its agents are often just getting by:
While the FBI plays a lead role in the war on terrorism, many agents say they are waging a private battle against financial hardship. An outdated pay structure has left many agents struggling to make ends meet, especially in high-cost cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York.
Some agents endure lengthy commutes. Others have gone deep into debt. A few have gone on food stamps or moved into government housing.
FBI veterans say the impact on the bureau's crime-fighting prowess is subtle, but unmistakable. Scores of younger agents are resigning for better-paying jobs in the private sector. Experienced agents want out of big cities. Top-level vacancies in specialties ranging from white-collar crime to counterterrorism go begging for applicants.
Had you ever imagined an FBI agent on Food Stamps?
While the FBI plays a lead role in the war on terrorism, many agents say they are waging a private battle against financial hardship. An outdated pay structure has left many agents struggling to make ends meet, especially in high-cost cities such as San Francisco, Los Angeles and New York.
Some agents endure lengthy commutes. Others have gone deep into debt. A few have gone on food stamps or moved into government housing.
FBI veterans say the impact on the bureau's crime-fighting prowess is subtle, but unmistakable. Scores of younger agents are resigning for better-paying jobs in the private sector. Experienced agents want out of big cities. Top-level vacancies in specialties ranging from white-collar crime to counterterrorism go begging for applicants.
Had you ever imagined an FBI agent on Food Stamps?
Weapons of Mass Redaction
Maureen Dowd has a fun piece in the current N. Y. Times. She affords some laughs while making a very real point about misdirection and secrecy in the Bush administration.
Always Learning the Wrong Lessons
Atrios reports on a story in the L. A. Times about the lack of planning for the aftermath of war in Iraq (the full set of war planners devoted all of two whole days to planning for the "peace"). The article itself is disturbing for the light it focuses on the casual approach our "experts" took to difficult questions. The worst thing about the article is that it seems to indicate worse to come. It concludes with these disturbing words:
Still, he and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.
"We're going to get better over time," promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. "We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase" distinct from combat, he said. "The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum
"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment," he said. "We'll get better as we do it more often."
As we do this more often? These people are insane. I suppose this means the Bush administration is studying how to better fabricate evidence so it can avoid the embarrasment of being caught in a lie next time.
Still, he and other Pentagon officials said, they are studying the lessons of Iraq closely — to ensure that the next U.S. takeover of a foreign country goes more smoothly.
"We're going to get better over time," promised Lawrence Di Rita, a special assistant to Rumsfeld. "We've always thought of post-hostilities as a phase" distinct from combat, he said. "The future of war is that these things are going to be much more of a continuum
"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment," he said. "We'll get better as we do it more often."
As we do this more often? These people are insane. I suppose this means the Bush administration is studying how to better fabricate evidence so it can avoid the embarrasment of being caught in a lie next time.
Is America A Great Country, Or What?
Yeah, lets make a profit on whatever is happening:
As the house of cards propping up the case for war against Iraq collapses under the weight of almost daily revelations, it seems likely that much of the pre-war politicization of U.S. intelligence centered on Donald Rumsfeld's office.
Oh yes, read and enjoy the full story.
As the house of cards propping up the case for war against Iraq collapses under the weight of almost daily revelations, it seems likely that much of the pre-war politicization of U.S. intelligence centered on Donald Rumsfeld's office.
Oh yes, read and enjoy the full story.
Impeachment?
From Alternet we get a rationale for Impeachment based on the president's response to the WMD issue. The President not only ignored what was known, he also hyped a fantasy of fear:
The proper reaction should have been to support the U.N. inspectors in doing their work in an efficient and timely fashion. We now know, and perhaps the White House knew then, that the inspectors eventually would come up empty-handed because no weapons of mass destruction program existed – not even a stray vial of chemical and biological weapons has been discovered. However, that would have obviated the administration's key rationale for an invasion, so lies substituted for facts that didn't exist.
And there, dear readers, exists the firm basis for bringing a charge of impeachment against the president who employed lies to lead us into war.
This is pretty clear. Will we be willing - ever - to take the steps necessary to make this administration pay for its crimes?
The proper reaction should have been to support the U.N. inspectors in doing their work in an efficient and timely fashion. We now know, and perhaps the White House knew then, that the inspectors eventually would come up empty-handed because no weapons of mass destruction program existed – not even a stray vial of chemical and biological weapons has been discovered. However, that would have obviated the administration's key rationale for an invasion, so lies substituted for facts that didn't exist.
And there, dear readers, exists the firm basis for bringing a charge of impeachment against the president who employed lies to lead us into war.
This is pretty clear. Will we be willing - ever - to take the steps necessary to make this administration pay for its crimes?
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Wolfowitz "Not Concerned" About WMDs
An interesting Robert Burns AP piece reported in Daiily Kos, quotes Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on the issue of the missing WMDs:
''I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction,'' Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. ''I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction.''
He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.
''If you could get in a relaxed conversation with Iraqis on that subject they'd say why on earth are you Americans fussing so much about this historical issue when we have real problems here, when Baathists are killing us and Baathists are threatening us and we don't have electricity and we don't have jobs. Those are the real issues.
''I'm not saying that getting to the bottom of this WMD issue isn't important. It is important. But it is not of immediate consequence.''
Consider this carefully. The supposed existence of these weapons was so scarry and threatening to us - according to Bush - that we had no choice but to go to war immediately in order to "disarm" Saddam. Now Saddam is gone - somewhere - as are the phantom WMDs. Why are they of no "immediate consequence" now that we don't know where they are? The answer is simple, the administration doesn't really care because it knows their existence never really mattered anyway except as an excuse to invade Iraq. The rationale for the war was a tissue of lies and exaggerations.
Now the Bush administration wants people to focus on the "real issues" relating to getting Iraq on its feet - issues that in the debate leading to war it denied we would have to deal with. And they accuse their critics of being "revisionists"?
''I'm not concerned about weapons of mass destruction,'' Wolfowitz told a group of reporters traveling with him. ''I'm concerned about getting Iraq on its feet. I didn't come (to Iraq) on a search for weapons of mass destruction.''
He also asserted that Iraqis themselves have little concern about the weapons issue.
''If you could get in a relaxed conversation with Iraqis on that subject they'd say why on earth are you Americans fussing so much about this historical issue when we have real problems here, when Baathists are killing us and Baathists are threatening us and we don't have electricity and we don't have jobs. Those are the real issues.
''I'm not saying that getting to the bottom of this WMD issue isn't important. It is important. But it is not of immediate consequence.''
Consider this carefully. The supposed existence of these weapons was so scarry and threatening to us - according to Bush - that we had no choice but to go to war immediately in order to "disarm" Saddam. Now Saddam is gone - somewhere - as are the phantom WMDs. Why are they of no "immediate consequence" now that we don't know where they are? The answer is simple, the administration doesn't really care because it knows their existence never really mattered anyway except as an excuse to invade Iraq. The rationale for the war was a tissue of lies and exaggerations.
Now the Bush administration wants people to focus on the "real issues" relating to getting Iraq on its feet - issues that in the debate leading to war it denied we would have to deal with. And they accuse their critics of being "revisionists"?
Jobs, Jobs, Jobs
This will certainly complicate the Bush administration's contentions that its policies will create millions of jobs - sometime. A recorded conference call reveals that top IBM executives are exploring moving more white collar jobs overseas :
I.B.M.'s internal discussion about moving jobs overseas provides a revealing look at how companies are grappling with a growing trend that many economists call off-shoring. In decades past, millions of American manufacturing jobs moved overseas, but in recent years the movement has also shifted to the service sector, with everything from low-end call center jobs to high-paying computer chip design jobs migrating to China, India, the Philippines, Russia and other countries.
See, this is the part of the job creation program we didn't understand - that the jobs were going to be in some other country. I sure feel better now.
I.B.M.'s internal discussion about moving jobs overseas provides a revealing look at how companies are grappling with a growing trend that many economists call off-shoring. In decades past, millions of American manufacturing jobs moved overseas, but in recent years the movement has also shifted to the service sector, with everything from low-end call center jobs to high-paying computer chip design jobs migrating to China, India, the Philippines, Russia and other countries.
See, this is the part of the job creation program we didn't understand - that the jobs were going to be in some other country. I sure feel better now.
Sunday, July 20, 2003
Suicide or Not?
About Dr. David Kelly, the British scientest at the center of recent charges that intelligence relating to Iraq's possible threat had been exaggerated by the government, the BBC News reports:
In an e-mail reportedly sent to a New York Times journalist hours before his death, Dr Kelly had apparently warned of "many dark actors playing games".
Though offically ruled a suicide, this death raises a number of difficult questions and will no doubt keep the story of exaggerated intelligence claims alive longer than might otherwise have been the case.
In an e-mail reportedly sent to a New York Times journalist hours before his death, Dr Kelly had apparently warned of "many dark actors playing games".
Though offically ruled a suicide, this death raises a number of difficult questions and will no doubt keep the story of exaggerated intelligence claims alive longer than might otherwise have been the case.
NY Time's Editorial Blasts U.S. Un-Free Trade
An absolutely astounding editorial taking up the entire editorial column in today's New York Times attacks the trade policies of the U.S. and Europe:
The United States, Europe and Japan funnel nearly a billion dollars a day to their farmers in taxpayer subsidies. These farmers say they will not be able to stay in business if they are left at the mercy of wildly fluctuating prices and are forced to compete against people in places like the Philippines, who are happy to work in the fields for a dollar a day. So the federal government writes out checks to Iowa corn farmers to supplement their income, and at times insures them against all sorts of risks assumed by any other business. This allows American companies to then profitably dump grain on international markets for a fraction of what it cost to grow, courtesy of the taxpayer, often at a price less than the break-even point for the impoverished third-world farmers. If all else fails, wealthy nations simply throw up trade barriers to lock out foreign commodities.
The system is sold to the American taxpayer as a way of preserving the iconic family farm, which does face tough times and deserves plenty of empathy, but it in fact helps corporate agribusiness interests the most.
By rigging the global trade game against farmers in developing nations, Europe, the United States and Japan are essentially kicking aside the development ladder for some of the world's most desperate people. This is morally depraved. By our actions, we are harvesting poverty around the world.
Is this the same NY Times that couldn't quite seem to understand what all the fuss over globalization and free trade was all about? I was pretty stunned but very pleased to see such a bold statement in what of late has been a newspaper liberal in reputation only.
The United States, Europe and Japan funnel nearly a billion dollars a day to their farmers in taxpayer subsidies. These farmers say they will not be able to stay in business if they are left at the mercy of wildly fluctuating prices and are forced to compete against people in places like the Philippines, who are happy to work in the fields for a dollar a day. So the federal government writes out checks to Iowa corn farmers to supplement their income, and at times insures them against all sorts of risks assumed by any other business. This allows American companies to then profitably dump grain on international markets for a fraction of what it cost to grow, courtesy of the taxpayer, often at a price less than the break-even point for the impoverished third-world farmers. If all else fails, wealthy nations simply throw up trade barriers to lock out foreign commodities.
The system is sold to the American taxpayer as a way of preserving the iconic family farm, which does face tough times and deserves plenty of empathy, but it in fact helps corporate agribusiness interests the most.
By rigging the global trade game against farmers in developing nations, Europe, the United States and Japan are essentially kicking aside the development ladder for some of the world's most desperate people. This is morally depraved. By our actions, we are harvesting poverty around the world.
Is this the same NY Times that couldn't quite seem to understand what all the fuss over globalization and free trade was all about? I was pretty stunned but very pleased to see such a bold statement in what of late has been a newspaper liberal in reputation only.
Friday, July 18, 2003
What's The Point of Tony Blair?
From the New Statesman:
while MPs debate whether he is expendable, the PM prepares for a third election victory. By John Kampfner
The Westminster village may be posing the wrong questions. It is not: Can he survive? It is not: At what point will he stand down? It is not: Has Iraq found him out? It is: What's the point of Tony Blair? Why is he there?
We could certainly ask the same question about George W. Bush.
while MPs debate whether he is expendable, the PM prepares for a third election victory. By John Kampfner
The Westminster village may be posing the wrong questions. It is not: Can he survive? It is not: At what point will he stand down? It is not: Has Iraq found him out? It is: What's the point of Tony Blair? Why is he there?
We could certainly ask the same question about George W. Bush.
The War Clearly Was About Oil
Check out the interesting review of evidence presented by Brief Intelligence that documents from the Cheney Energy Task Force released by the government as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, contain maps and other documents pertaining to Iraqi oil fields. No wonder the Veep has tried so hard to prevent the public from knowing what was actually discussed at these meetings. The Enron influence was bad enough, but this. . .?
Is This Vince Foster All Over Again?
The Times also reports that a British arms expert who had recently been featured in the news concerning charges that Blair's government had tried to "sex up" its Iraq threat dossier, was found dead this morning. So far, no cause of death has been annoucned but it's all very suspect. He was reported missing by his wife yesterday. According to the Times' story:
Dr. Kelly, whose title was senior adviser on weapons of mass destruction, may have unwittingly become caught up in a political firestorm for which his experience as an acknowledged authority on bioterrorism had not prepared him.
. . .
An Oxford-educated, former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq with a speciality in biological weapons, Dr. Kelly faced tough questioning on Tuesday from the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Lawmakers especially wanted to know whether he was the source of an accusation broadcast by the BBC that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair had doctored intelligence findings in its campaign to gain public support for going to war in Iraq.
A soft-spoken civil servant in the Ministry of Defense accustomed to working behind the scenes, Dr. Kelly was repeatedly pressed by committee members to say whether he thought he was the "fall guy" in a bitter dispute that has pitted the government against the BBC and been front-page news in Britain during the last week.
The implication of the badgering questions was that the scientist had been set up by Mr. Blair's powerful communications and security director, Alastair Campbell, and the Ministry of Defense to counter damaging reports by the BBC about possible government manipulation of intelligence.
What was only theoretical and abstract yesterday has now, by virtue of a corpse, become a compelling and very concrete story. If Bush and Blair were hoping that this whole thing about exaggerated intelligence would just blow over, I think they will be disappointed.
Dr. Kelly, whose title was senior adviser on weapons of mass destruction, may have unwittingly become caught up in a political firestorm for which his experience as an acknowledged authority on bioterrorism had not prepared him.
. . .
An Oxford-educated, former United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq with a speciality in biological weapons, Dr. Kelly faced tough questioning on Tuesday from the House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Lawmakers especially wanted to know whether he was the source of an accusation broadcast by the BBC that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair had doctored intelligence findings in its campaign to gain public support for going to war in Iraq.
A soft-spoken civil servant in the Ministry of Defense accustomed to working behind the scenes, Dr. Kelly was repeatedly pressed by committee members to say whether he thought he was the "fall guy" in a bitter dispute that has pitted the government against the BBC and been front-page news in Britain during the last week.
The implication of the badgering questions was that the scientist had been set up by Mr. Blair's powerful communications and security director, Alastair Campbell, and the Ministry of Defense to counter damaging reports by the BBC about possible government manipulation of intelligence.
What was only theoretical and abstract yesterday has now, by virtue of a corpse, become a compelling and very concrete story. If Bush and Blair were hoping that this whole thing about exaggerated intelligence would just blow over, I think they will be disappointed.
Passing Our Problems Along
Krugman has a good piece in today's New York Times about the hypocracy of Bush's claim that:
"We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
Of course that is exactly what this administration is doing with its huge tax cuts for the rich and the resulting deficits. The heavy price will be paid later, by those who didn't benefit from the tax cut and borrowing spree of the present.
"We will not deny, we will not ignore, we will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents and other generations."
Of course that is exactly what this administration is doing with its huge tax cuts for the rich and the resulting deficits. The heavy price will be paid later, by those who didn't benefit from the tax cut and borrowing spree of the present.
Is Tony Blair Nuts?
According to Daily Kos:
Despite a well-received speech by PM Tony Blair today before Congress, the Independent ran a story which says the next issue of the New Statesman ( a British opinion magazine akin to Harpers or the Atlantic, but more fun) debated whether he was psychotic or a psychopath.
Visit the latest issue of The New Statesman online for more fun insight and opinion about Bush's poodle Blair, such as:
So were the Tories right after all?
Peter Dunn
July 21 2003
The question of Tony Blair's sanity is one that can no longer be avoided. Peter Dunn canvasses opinion in the couch community and comes to disturbing conclusions
Nobody at M&C Saatchi seems to want to talk about the advertising agency's most infamous product, the "demon eyes" election poster of Tony Blair. "Everyone is in conference talking to clients all day," says cool Veronica firmly when I call. This is a pity, because I have an unusual question to ask: did the creator of that poster for the Tory campaign, withdrawn in the run-up to the 1997 election, after furious protests by new Labour, see something in Blair that the rest of us missed?
Despite a well-received speech by PM Tony Blair today before Congress, the Independent ran a story which says the next issue of the New Statesman ( a British opinion magazine akin to Harpers or the Atlantic, but more fun) debated whether he was psychotic or a psychopath.
Visit the latest issue of The New Statesman online for more fun insight and opinion about Bush's poodle Blair, such as:
So were the Tories right after all?
Peter Dunn
July 21 2003
The question of Tony Blair's sanity is one that can no longer be avoided. Peter Dunn canvasses opinion in the couch community and comes to disturbing conclusions
Nobody at M&C Saatchi seems to want to talk about the advertising agency's most infamous product, the "demon eyes" election poster of Tony Blair. "Everyone is in conference talking to clients all day," says cool Veronica firmly when I call. This is a pity, because I have an unusual question to ask: did the creator of that poster for the Tory campaign, withdrawn in the run-up to the 1997 election, after furious protests by new Labour, see something in Blair that the rest of us missed?
Recession Officially Over
Well, I am sooo relieved. As reported in The Boston Herald :
A recession that put millions of Americans out of work officially ended more than 19 months ago, the authority on U.S. business cycles declared yesterday.
Despite ongoing job losses, the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research said that the economy stopped contracting in November 2001
I'm sure this will make all of those who are out of work or working two low paying jobs to make ends meet just bubble over with enthusiasm for Bush's economic policies.
A recession that put millions of Americans out of work officially ended more than 19 months ago, the authority on U.S. business cycles declared yesterday.
Despite ongoing job losses, the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research said that the economy stopped contracting in November 2001
I'm sure this will make all of those who are out of work or working two low paying jobs to make ends meet just bubble over with enthusiasm for Bush's economic policies.
Condi Rice Aide Implicated in Niger/Uranium Case
Well, I've thought Condi Rice looked unusually angry and twitchy lately. Now we have some idea why, as many have suggested she seems to be a lot closer to responsibility for the claims Bush made in his State of the Union Address about Saddam seeking unranium in Africa than was anyone at the CIA. The Mercury News reported yesterday that the person who put the statement in the speech was Rice aide Robert Joseph, who had already been mentioned in earlier news about the Bush administration putting pressure on the CIA to produce intelligence that justified its preconceptions:
Knight Ridder first reported last month that it was Joseph, working with Vice President Dick Cheney's office, who led an effort by pro-invasion administration officials to include the uranium allegation in Bush's address.
Oh YES! Let's give credit where credit is due. And blame as well. This just gets better and better.
Knight Ridder first reported last month that it was Joseph, working with Vice President Dick Cheney's office, who led an effort by pro-invasion administration officials to include the uranium allegation in Bush's address.
Oh YES! Let's give credit where credit is due. And blame as well. This just gets better and better.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
Blogs that don't Suck
One of the primier blogs that goes a long way towards making sense out of the 'Niger/Yellowcake" story is The Talking Points Memo, well worth reading every day. Thoughtful and balanced - more than one can say of the Bushies.
Blogs that Suck Good
Sometimes I just need to be tacky. Check out Suckful, a blog that really casts a poison shadow over Bush Jr.
"My Name is a Killing Word!": Sometimes You Just Have To Be STUPID!
Here we are in a period of time when life and death questions are prominent every day and each of us feels less and less in control of the significant aspects of our lives. So I feel really guilty at spending my time tonight not only just watching a movie but watching what is perhaps one of the worst movies ever made. For reasons I can't explain I am watching the "expanded" version of "Dune" - a movie based on a great book that was so off the mark that it is difficult to ennumerate all the things wrong with it:
1. awful and incomprehensible scritpt (bad overdubbing for expositon),
2. anachronistic costumes and sets (lots of 19th Century Russia and Prussia influences),
3. misuse of an excellent cast (Kyle MacLachlan, José Ferrer, Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif, Sting, Kenneth McMillan, Patrick Stewart, Sean Young, and Linda Hunt) all of whom were forced to say really stupid things in portentious tones,
4. very bad special effects (reminded me of 1930's Flash Gordon films), and
5. super pretentious and very BORING tone!
So, why am I watching this? It is better - for all its faults - than the current events 'News" programs available on the network. Nothing about this idiotic spectacle is as unbelievable as the real world I live in.
1. awful and incomprehensible scritpt (bad overdubbing for expositon),
2. anachronistic costumes and sets (lots of 19th Century Russia and Prussia influences),
3. misuse of an excellent cast (Kyle MacLachlan, José Ferrer, Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif, Sting, Kenneth McMillan, Patrick Stewart, Sean Young, and Linda Hunt) all of whom were forced to say really stupid things in portentious tones,
4. very bad special effects (reminded me of 1930's Flash Gordon films), and
5. super pretentious and very BORING tone!
So, why am I watching this? It is better - for all its faults - than the current events 'News" programs available on the network. Nothing about this idiotic spectacle is as unbelievable as the real world I live in.
We Need Another I.F. Stone
I.F. Stone, the king of do-it-yourself investigative reporting, is exactly the kind of man made for iconoclastic bloggers. Stone worked alone, using obvious but ignored sources, and time and again scooped the well funded reporters of the major media, and a big part of what made this possible was his absolute belief that every official pronouncement of government was a lie. This always gave him a clear direction and focus.
How different today when major media pretends that any "official" statement can't be questioned without risking charges of bias. Face it, the "official" position is, by definition, biased. The real work of journalism should be to unmask that bias, and highlight what is true and verifiable.
How different today when major media pretends that any "official" statement can't be questioned without risking charges of bias. Face it, the "official" position is, by definition, biased. The real work of journalism should be to unmask that bias, and highlight what is true and verifiable.
Render Unto Caesar
The Reverand Pat Robertson has called on his flock of sheep to pray for a miracle that would replace three Supreme Court Justices with more conservative ones.
I don't want to get sidetracked by irrelevant considerations, but doesn't Robertson look a lot like Yoda in the picture accompanying this article? Somehow I don't think the Force is with him.
I don't want to get sidetracked by irrelevant considerations, but doesn't Robertson look a lot like Yoda in the picture accompanying this article? Somehow I don't think the Force is with him.
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
For Bush, Politics is More Important than National Security
A significant side story of the Wilson Niger/Uranium report, is the backlash from the White House that may have compromised national security. As an interesting article in The Nation asks:
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
This story just gets uglier and uglier.
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
This story just gets uglier and uglier.
Voting Machines and the Death of Democracy
A really distressing story in Infernalpress lays out all the reasons why the new generation of electronic voting machines are REALLY not a good idea. Try lack of audit trail, lack of accountability, ease of hacking into the process, and loss of control by election officials.
If you want to win the election, just control the machines."
-- Charlie Matulka, Nebraska Senatorial Candidate.
In this same vein, if you haven't read Greg Palast on this, you should.
If you want to win the election, just control the machines."
-- Charlie Matulka, Nebraska Senatorial Candidate.
In this same vein, if you haven't read Greg Palast on this, you should.
Timeline on the Uranium Misinformation
ABC has a great timeline showing the history of the Niger/Uranium story and its travels to the State of the Union Address. And Calpundit shows why this story is important.
Drifting Towards War?
The Bush team had to pull out all the stops to make the case for an otherwise meaningless war with Iraq. Now, Former Defense Secretary Bill Perry says that the United States is in danger of just drifting into a war with North Korea. More on this frightening situation can be found at Billmon's 'Whiskey Bar'.
Just a Thought
Remember these words?:
We did not know at the time - no one knew at the time, in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
That was, as Mike Reed points out, Dr. Condoleeza Rice on Meet the Press, June 8. Maybe it was Freudian on her part, but isn't the phrase "down in the bowels of the agency" an interesting choice of words? We all know what comes from bowels and all parts of the Bush administration have been producing great quantities of it lately.
We did not know at the time - no one knew at the time, in our circles - maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery."
That was, as Mike Reed points out, Dr. Condoleeza Rice on Meet the Press, June 8. Maybe it was Freudian on her part, but isn't the phrase "down in the bowels of the agency" an interesting choice of words? We all know what comes from bowels and all parts of the Bush administration have been producing great quantities of it lately.
What War on Terrorism
Just in case you wondered what the Department of Homeland Security was really up to , they seem to have been sidetracked into searching for child pornographers and other "evil doers" that have nothing to do with terrorism. What gives?
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Another Perspective
I have charged in a previous post that the Bushies didn't really plan for the aftermath of the Iraq War, and that explains many of the problems, but a story in the current Newsweek magazine suggests a different explanation, that lots of planning was done, but it was for the wrong problems!
According to this article, nothing that was planned for occurred. Nothing that emerged as a real problem was planned for. Sheesh!
According to this article, nothing that was planned for occurred. Nothing that emerged as a real problem was planned for. Sheesh!
Greenspan Speaks . . .
And Stocks Fall. Yeah, yeah - remember how terrible things were under Clinton? No? Well, me neither.
The VIPS Memo
Tonight on NPR a spokesman for VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity) discussed the memo the group has just produced and sent to the President, detailing the misuse of intelligence in the justification for the war with Iraq and concluding with a call for the resignation of Veep Dick Cheney, who they feel is primarily responsible. An interesting side story to this is reported in a piece in Counter Punch by a couple of former members of VIPS who resigned to protest the memo - not because they don't agree that intelligence was distored, but because they think that singling out Cheney is to ignore the widespread complicity of others in this administration and to oversimplify the situation:
"We do not feel that this latest VIPS memorandum to the president is as careful or as judicious in its language as it should be. It is an attention-getter, an effort to keep the subject alive, rather than a reasoned piece of analysis and exposition. The Bush administration as a whole has clearly played fast and loose with the truth in a matter of surpassing importance. We fear that, in its very laudable effort to expose the administration, this memorandum runs the risk of showing up VIPS itself as a group that plays fast and loose with the truth. There is a place for rhetoric and flashy writing. We do not believe a memorandum for the president about a subject as serious to the nation's destiny as the politicization and distortion of intelligence in the service of aggressive warfare is such a place."
"We do not feel that this latest VIPS memorandum to the president is as careful or as judicious in its language as it should be. It is an attention-getter, an effort to keep the subject alive, rather than a reasoned piece of analysis and exposition. The Bush administration as a whole has clearly played fast and loose with the truth in a matter of surpassing importance. We fear that, in its very laudable effort to expose the administration, this memorandum runs the risk of showing up VIPS itself as a group that plays fast and loose with the truth. There is a place for rhetoric and flashy writing. We do not believe a memorandum for the president about a subject as serious to the nation's destiny as the politicization and distortion of intelligence in the service of aggressive warfare is such a place."
What is Bush Smoking?
Quite a few sources, blogs and news venues alike, are trying to make sense of the remarks Bush made yesterday in defending his rationale for war with Iraq. The statement that has so many heads shaking is this:
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Now, since everyone on the planet who had access to TV or a newspaper knows that he did, indeed, let the inspectors in - and that it was the Bush administration that refused to allow them time to actually finish the inspection process - we have to really wonder if this guy lives in the same reality the rest of us do. Tom Tomorrow wonders about that, as does TPM in a very good analysis of the speech this sentence came from.
Bush has long acted as if he could say whatever he wanted and no one would call him on it. I think this kind of flagrant assault on reality is too much of a challenge for even the tame media to ignore. More reporters need to be going "Say what???"
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
Now, since everyone on the planet who had access to TV or a newspaper knows that he did, indeed, let the inspectors in - and that it was the Bush administration that refused to allow them time to actually finish the inspection process - we have to really wonder if this guy lives in the same reality the rest of us do. Tom Tomorrow wonders about that, as does TPM in a very good analysis of the speech this sentence came from.
Bush has long acted as if he could say whatever he wanted and no one would call him on it. I think this kind of flagrant assault on reality is too much of a challenge for even the tame media to ignore. More reporters need to be going "Say what???"
Krugman is Back!
Thank God. I was about to suffer major withdrawal. His current rant is classic Krugman invective and should satisfy the soul of any of us who are SICK OF BUSH.
Damn, he's good. Enjoy.
Damn, he's good. Enjoy.
A Constitutional Trainwreck in the Making
The Bush Administration's Justice Department and the Federal Judiciary are on a collision course over how to deal with the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. According to the Washington Post:
The Justice Department yesterday refused to produce a key witness in the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, defying a federal court order and acknowledging that the judge will likely dismiss the indictment against the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Is this not strange? Is this let's 'cut off our nose to spite our face?' - or does John Ashcroft think that if the charges against Moussaoui are dismissed he can then be tried by one of the military tribunals we have become so fond of that simply dispense with those bothersome 'due process' considerations that make it difficult to condemn and execute people without having to provide proof? I have to confess, I find this whole thing really puzzling. We have - I think - actual valid evidence that Mossaoui was involved in the 9/11 plot. It was a fluke that he was arrested before the actual event. Now, rather than see him stand public trial - and maybe illuminating some of what actually happened - the Bush administration is so intent on maintaining secrecy that it is willing to risk having the charges dismissed?
I just can't believe it.
The Justice Department yesterday refused to produce a key witness in the case against Zacarias Moussaoui, defying a federal court order and acknowledging that the judge will likely dismiss the indictment against the only person charged in the United States in connection with the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Is this not strange? Is this let's 'cut off our nose to spite our face?' - or does John Ashcroft think that if the charges against Moussaoui are dismissed he can then be tried by one of the military tribunals we have become so fond of that simply dispense with those bothersome 'due process' considerations that make it difficult to condemn and execute people without having to provide proof? I have to confess, I find this whole thing really puzzling. We have - I think - actual valid evidence that Mossaoui was involved in the 9/11 plot. It was a fluke that he was arrested before the actual event. Now, rather than see him stand public trial - and maybe illuminating some of what actually happened - the Bush administration is so intent on maintaining secrecy that it is willing to risk having the charges dismissed?
I just can't believe it.
Homeless in L.A.
Since I posted about the homeless situation in D.C. several days ago I find it interesting that this morning's New York Times has a front page article about rising homelessness in Los Angeles. Of course they aren't talking about homelessness in Manhattan.
Growing Public Frustration with the Iraq Aftermath
Newsweek magazine has an interesting report about growing citizen frustration with the situation in Iraq, and another story that indicates that American soldiers are equally frustrated.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Flawed Intellignece and Bad Reasoning
OK, this is getting stranger and stranger. On CNN I just heard someone (I no longer even care who these vacuous windbags are) say that the fact that Saddam refused to cooperate with the international community was clear evidence that he "had something to hide", therefore was guilty of whatever he was charged with. I like this! It means that we can turn to Dick Cheney and his refusal to provide info about the Energy Task Force (which, after all, was supposed to be a public forum relating to public policy). The fact that he refuses to even tell us who he met with, much less what they talked about, must mean that He has something to hide
. Now we can turn our attention to figuring out what that something is.
This should be fun.
. Now we can turn our attention to figuring out what that something is.
This should be fun.
"Army Times" Poll Critical of Bush
As a followup to the Army Times editorial referred to previously, this poll is an interesting picture of how our service personnel view their 'commander in cheif":
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think about the "bring them on" challenge President Bush issued July 2 from the White House, referring to those who attack U.S. troops in Iraq?
It showed U.S. resolve and confidence in troops to finish the job in Iraq 36.80 % (1,388)
It was irresponsible and unnecessarily placed the lives of U.S. troops in even greater danger 61.48 % (2,319)
I don't know 1.72 % (65)
Total votes: 3772
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you think about the "bring them on" challenge President Bush issued July 2 from the White House, referring to those who attack U.S. troops in Iraq?
It showed U.S. resolve and confidence in troops to finish the job in Iraq 36.80 % (1,388)
It was irresponsible and unnecessarily placed the lives of U.S. troops in even greater danger 61.48 % (2,319)
I don't know 1.72 % (65)
Total votes: 3772
More Bush Family History
One of Sam Smith's better resources on his fine Progressive Review site is a history of the Bush family. This really deserves to be read by every American. It is, truely, almost unbelieveable.
Bush Likes Bad Intelligence?
While controversy rages around Bush's use of forged documents to justify a pre-emptive war with Irag, he claims the intelligence he received was 'Darn Good'.
I suppose if one doesn't particularly differentiate between truth and falsehood, whatever serves the immediate need is OK. How is it that Clinton's fibbing about sex was a federal case (literally) while Bush's lethal lies are viewed as "gilding the lily"?
I suppose if one doesn't particularly differentiate between truth and falsehood, whatever serves the immediate need is OK. How is it that Clinton's fibbing about sex was a federal case (literally) while Bush's lethal lies are viewed as "gilding the lily"?
Iraq Chaos Due to Lack of Planning
This is not a new story, either, but it is clear that blame has still not been fully focused on those who put American service persons at risk due to their lack of planning:
The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.
The officials didn't develop any real postwar plans because they believed that Iraqis would welcome U.S. troops with open arms and Washington could install a favored Iraqi exile leader as the country's leader. The Pentagon civilians ignored CIA and State Department experts who disputed them, resisted White House pressure to back off from their favored exile leader and when their scenario collapsed amid increasing violence and disorder, they had no backup plan.
Michael Savage and Allen Ginsberg???????????????
OK, I have to admit that this absolutely stunned me. I understand that much bigoted hysteria flows from hypocritical and conflicted feelings of those who simply can't face the truth about themselves, but this particular piece about the early correspondence between gay glorifying beat poet Allen Ginsberg and gay bashing, hate speak media figure Michael Savage left me absolutely mute. This is too good to be true on one level, and very sad on another.
U.S. Builds Concentration Camps in Iraq?
A part of the story the U.S. government isn't so willing to brag about in Iraq is the construction of detention camps to be used for what or whom is not clear. This is really ugly.
Shrub Dumps on our Military
I've linked to this editorial from Army Times before but it is just too good to let pass. This should be read by every American and remembered carefully when Bush tries to pretend to honor Americans serving in the military. As this scathing editorial begins:
"In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
"In recent months, President Bush and the Republican-controlled Congress have missed no opportunity to heap richly deserved praise on the military. But talk is cheap — and getting cheaper by the day, judging from the nickel-and-dime treatment the troops are getting lately.
Sunday, July 13, 2003
Shrub's Falling Approval Ratings
Check out Kos's review of the falling approval numbers for Bush and company. It does the heart good.
Let's All Dis Condi Rice
All day I've had to listen to replays of various interviews with Condoleezza Rice in which she stiffly denies that the Niger/Uranium issue had much to do with Bush taking the country to war in Iraq. Well, as I well remember, the image of the potential "mushroom cloud" (in the words of this same person) was front and center in the scare factor that was cranked up to make Iraq - a poor, beaten down, third rate country - seem to be some kind of immediate threat to the United States; enough of a threat to justify invasion, bombing, and the widespread murder of innocent civilians just because they happened to live in a country we designated a "rogue state." With this in mind it is good to review the words of former ambassador Joseph Wilson who was asked by the Vice President's office to investigate the Niger/Uranium story. He determined that it was false - and so reported long before the bogus charges made in the State of the Union Address. Now he has gone public because he feels that what was widely known was ignored in order to justify an unjustified war. In his own words, "" Well, the question has always been for me whether or not the threat of weapons of mass destruction was the grave and gathering danger or the imminent threat to our national security that it was said to be. Vice President Cheney flatly asserted in a "Meet the Press" interview that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear arms program. We had any number of officials talk about the mushroom cloud that was on its way from Iraq. Now, we've got 200 Americans dead in Iraq, 150,000 Americans occupying the country, $70 or $80 billion already spent. And the question really is whether or not the threat merited that sort of response.
."
He doesn't believe so. And neither does Senator Jay Rockefeller who has this to say:
"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."
It doesn't look as though this story is going away any time soon. I suspect that more than a few loyal Bushies will have to walk the plank over this. I can hardly wait. As Senator Rockefeller continues:
"The entire intelligence community has been very skeptical about this from the very beginning, and she has her own director of intelligence, she has her own Iraq and Africa specialists, and it's just beyond me that she didn't know about this, and that she has decided to make George Tenet the fall person. I think it's dishonorable."
."
He doesn't believe so. And neither does Senator Jay Rockefeller who has this to say:
"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."
It doesn't look as though this story is going away any time soon. I suspect that more than a few loyal Bushies will have to walk the plank over this. I can hardly wait. As Senator Rockefeller continues:
"The entire intelligence community has been very skeptical about this from the very beginning, and she has her own director of intelligence, she has her own Iraq and Africa specialists, and it's just beyond me that she didn't know about this, and that she has decided to make George Tenet the fall person. I think it's dishonorable."
Who Really Supports Terrorists?
I'm not sure why this is being treated as such a surprise, but an upcoming congressional report will show that Al Qaeda receives financial support from Saudi Arabia Well, DUHHH! This has been well known since the terrorist organization first surfaced - long before 9/11. The only reason it is "news" is that our complicit government has done everything possible to point the finger of blame elsewhere and refuse to acknowledge that its rich, corrupt ally is the primary financial and ideological support for Osama Bin Laden and his group. Saudis originally supported Osama because they strongly agreed with his agenda. Now they support him as a kind of extrortion - payoffs to keep him away from home, where Islamic fundamentalism is a constant threat to the ruling House of Saud.
That we decided to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and ignore Saudi Arabia, the home to 15 of the highjackers as well as to Osama Bin Laden, is a testiment to our government's misplaced focus. That the Bush family, father as well as son, have been long term business partners to Saudis generally - and the Bin Laden family specifically - is another potentially embarassing fact that this administration has tried desperately to gloss over. It is time for the public to be made aware of the questionable connections between all these players on the international stage. 9/11 may look quite different once people see how close both sides have been for over two decades.
That we decided to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and ignore Saudi Arabia, the home to 15 of the highjackers as well as to Osama Bin Laden, is a testiment to our government's misplaced focus. That the Bush family, father as well as son, have been long term business partners to Saudis generally - and the Bin Laden family specifically - is another potentially embarassing fact that this administration has tried desperately to gloss over. It is time for the public to be made aware of the questionable connections between all these players on the international stage. 9/11 may look quite different once people see how close both sides have been for over two decades.
Bush and the Language of Political Manipulation
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer has a very interesting article by Renana Brooks, a clinical psychologist, about the manipulative uses of language by Geogre W. Bush in communicating with the public. According to Brooks, Bush uses "empty language" (broad generalizations that can't really be argued about), "Personalization" (always talking in terms of "I" as if he, alone, is the focus of whatever he's talking about, and "Negative Framework" (putting every topic in the worse possible light to exaggerate the crisis or threat).
Her analysis and recommendations for countering Bush-speak are worth considering by those of us who want major change in government:
"To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party.
Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the "national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004."
It's time to re-read George Orwell. The language we use largely defines the world we inhabit and limits the options for action available to us. It would be helpful to also revisit the broad overview of Korzibsky's General Semantics. We live in a sea of words and it is in our best interest to be very aware of how those words relate to the Real World. They help define whether it is really 'real' or not.
Her analysis and recommendations for countering Bush-speak are worth considering by those of us who want major change in government:
"To create a dependency dynamic between him and the electorate, Bush describes the nation as being in a perpetual state of crisis and then attempts to convince the electorate that it is powerless and that he is the only one with the strength to deal with it. He attempts to persuade people they must transfer power to him, thus crushing the power of the citizen, the Congress, the Democratic Party, even constitutional liberties, to concentrate all power in the imperial presidency and the Republican Party.
Bush's political opponents are caught in a fantasy that they can win against him simply by proving the superiority of their ideas. However, people do not support Bush for the power of his ideas, but out of the despair and desperation in their hearts. Whenever people are in the grip of a desperate dependency, they won't respond to rational criticisms of the people they are dependent on. They will respond to plausible and forceful statements and alternatives that put the American electorate back in touch with their core optimism. Bush's opponents must combat his dark imagery with hope and restore American vigor and optimism in the coming years. They should heed the example of Reagan, who used optimism against Carter and the "national malaise"; Franklin Roosevelt, who used it against Hoover and the pessimism induced by the Depression ("the only thing we have to fear is fear itself"); and Clinton (the "Man from Hope"), who used positive language against the senior Bush's lack of vision. This is the linguistic prescription for those who wish to retire Bush in 2004."
It's time to re-read George Orwell. The language we use largely defines the world we inhabit and limits the options for action available to us. It would be helpful to also revisit the broad overview of Korzibsky's General Semantics. We live in a sea of words and it is in our best interest to be very aware of how those words relate to the Real World. They help define whether it is really 'real' or not.
Homeless in the Land of Plenty
It's a beautiful day in your nation's capitol and I went out early for a long walk in my neighborhood downtown. Passing Franklin Square, four blocks from the White House, one can't help but notice that every bench in the block square park is occupied by homeless persons, with all of their belongings bagged and stacked next to them. A block further on, on the steps of the Smithsonian's Museum of Women in the Arts, three homeless people lie sleeping while another talks to himself on a nearby bench. Along the next two blocks of New York Avenue leading to the Treasury Building and the White House, numerous homeless lie sleeping tucked into doorways or attempting to hit early tourists up for change on the sidewalks. On the block of Pennsylvania Avenue where the Treasury and White House are located, several homeless people lie sleeping on the top steps of the Riggs Bank Building across from the Treasury. This is almost directly across the street from the White House! I suppose it is a testiment to something that the police haven't cleared these people away to make the downtown D.C. picture prettier - as was done with the entire population of one city in Africa Bush visited. On the other hand, maybe they have simply become invisible. People pass them and avert their eyes. Certainly the occupants of the White House seem oblivious to their plight.
The awful truth is that homelessness and intractable poverty are dramatically increasing in America, and are more and more on public display in all our major cities. The Bush policies that are further enriching those who were already doing well are depriving those at the bottom both of basic relief as well as any path to improvement. To create a permanent underclass of beggers is not in this country's best interests. To ignore the very real problems posed by such a large class of dispossesed people is criminal. For an administration that claims to be Christian and compassionate it is simply unbelievable.
For a different perspective on homelessness, drop in from time to time at The Homeless Guy's website.
The awful truth is that homelessness and intractable poverty are dramatically increasing in America, and are more and more on public display in all our major cities. The Bush policies that are further enriching those who were already doing well are depriving those at the bottom both of basic relief as well as any path to improvement. To create a permanent underclass of beggers is not in this country's best interests. To ignore the very real problems posed by such a large class of dispossesed people is criminal. For an administration that claims to be Christian and compassionate it is simply unbelievable.
For a different perspective on homelessness, drop in from time to time at The Homeless Guy's website.
Saturday, July 12, 2003
FYI: Reading List
Just to give you an idea of what material is corrupting my mind, this is my weekend reading list (besides the Washington Post and NY Times):
- Newseek
- The New Statesman
- The Washington City Paper
- Extra Update: the bimonthly newsletter of FAIR
- The Nation
- The New Republic
- The Progressive
- The Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine
- plus whatever I find of interest on the internet.
- Newseek
- The New Statesman
- The Washington City Paper
- Extra Update: the bimonthly newsletter of FAIR
- The Nation
- The New Republic
- The Progressive
- The Monthly Review: An Independent Socialist Magazine
- plus whatever I find of interest on the internet.
Bush Demands that President Taylor "Step Down"
This week on his trip to Africa, G. W. Bush demanded that President Taylor of Liberia, "step down" to save his country from further bloodshed. Gee, wouldn't it be a good idea if Bush stepped down to save his country from further bloodshed? I could go for that.
Will Bush Start to Cut His Losses?
Common Dreams reprints a piece from the Boston Globe suggesting that it's time that Bush give Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz the boot. Wouldn't it be great? This is only part of what is charged:
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz presided over what one diplomat calls a ''colossal miscalculation'' that may have more impact on this country than did the miscalculation at the Bay of Pigs four decades ago. All the effort that the armed forces took not to destroy vital civilian infrastructure went for naught because all was destroyed by postcombat looting. Although American soldiers quickly secured the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, nothing was done to protect museums, hospitals, vital offices - even nuclear facilities where radioactive material might have fallen into terrorist hands. Vital records that might have led us to weapons of mass destruction were also destroyed.
The damage done is incalculable, and not just in material terms. The political damage has been worse and will be far more lasting in its consequences. The Pentagon civilian leadership has squandered much of the good will that Iraqis felt after the yoke of the Ba'ath Party was lifted. Policy is in drift. Forces that are inimical to American interests are rushing in to fill that vacuum. A guerrilla war is gathering.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz presided over what one diplomat calls a ''colossal miscalculation'' that may have more impact on this country than did the miscalculation at the Bay of Pigs four decades ago. All the effort that the armed forces took not to destroy vital civilian infrastructure went for naught because all was destroyed by postcombat looting. Although American soldiers quickly secured the Oil Ministry in Baghdad, nothing was done to protect museums, hospitals, vital offices - even nuclear facilities where radioactive material might have fallen into terrorist hands. Vital records that might have led us to weapons of mass destruction were also destroyed.
The damage done is incalculable, and not just in material terms. The political damage has been worse and will be far more lasting in its consequences. The Pentagon civilian leadership has squandered much of the good will that Iraqis felt after the yoke of the Ba'ath Party was lifted. Policy is in drift. Forces that are inimical to American interests are rushing in to fill that vacuum. A guerrilla war is gathering.
Who is Wesley Clark?
For those who haven't caught the buzz about General Wesley Clark as a potential Democratic presidential candidate, the Washington Post has an interesting piece this morning my Franklin Foer asking Should the Democrats Draft a General?
Alas, the rationale for drafting Clark seems to be solely that as a military man he can counter the Republicans perceived superiority on defense matters. The truth is that this perceived superiority is only that - 'perceived' - and not based on any demonstrable history of success in this arena other than invading and 'defeating' third rate countries that couldn't defend themselves - Granada and Panama being the most glaring cases of going after gnats with a shotgun. And of course it was a Republican administration that presided over our ignominious defeat in Viet Nam (after needlessly spreading the war to Laos and Cambodia). The Republicans talk tough (Bush is especially fond of the macho speak) but their bravado has not made us safer. Far from it. In fact a good case can be made that 9/11 followed specifically from the failed military adventures of the first Bush administration. And certainly the favored Republican approach to defense - newer and more expensive hardware contracts to enrich the fat cat defense contractors (and don't get me started about the Carlyle Group) - has simply increased the national debt and done nothing to protect us from fanatics with box cutters and a good plan. Jet aircraft and tanks don't provide a good defense against suicide bombers (as the Israelis have discovered).
In truth, the present Republican administration's only response to 9/11 (besides cracking down on the freedoms of American citizens) has been to invade a country that harbored the terrorist planners but fail to effectively capture or destroy them, and to invade and defeat another that so far as we know had nothing to do with those attacks. Rather than responding to 9/11 realistically, the Republicans have chosen to use the attack as a pretext for doing other things they wanted to do but had no justification for. Unocal wanted a pipline deal in Afghanistan and all the big oil companies want a piece of Iraqi oil. If this is being strong on defense I just don't get it.
Alas, the rationale for drafting Clark seems to be solely that as a military man he can counter the Republicans perceived superiority on defense matters. The truth is that this perceived superiority is only that - 'perceived' - and not based on any demonstrable history of success in this arena other than invading and 'defeating' third rate countries that couldn't defend themselves - Granada and Panama being the most glaring cases of going after gnats with a shotgun. And of course it was a Republican administration that presided over our ignominious defeat in Viet Nam (after needlessly spreading the war to Laos and Cambodia). The Republicans talk tough (Bush is especially fond of the macho speak) but their bravado has not made us safer. Far from it. In fact a good case can be made that 9/11 followed specifically from the failed military adventures of the first Bush administration. And certainly the favored Republican approach to defense - newer and more expensive hardware contracts to enrich the fat cat defense contractors (and don't get me started about the Carlyle Group) - has simply increased the national debt and done nothing to protect us from fanatics with box cutters and a good plan. Jet aircraft and tanks don't provide a good defense against suicide bombers (as the Israelis have discovered).
In truth, the present Republican administration's only response to 9/11 (besides cracking down on the freedoms of American citizens) has been to invade a country that harbored the terrorist planners but fail to effectively capture or destroy them, and to invade and defeat another that so far as we know had nothing to do with those attacks. Rather than responding to 9/11 realistically, the Republicans have chosen to use the attack as a pretext for doing other things they wanted to do but had no justification for. Unocal wanted a pipline deal in Afghanistan and all the big oil companies want a piece of Iraqi oil. If this is being strong on defense I just don't get it.
Friday, July 11, 2003
War is a Racket
A truely great, honest characterization of modern American warfare as a racket perpetrated for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many was presented sixty years ago by Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler, one of the few soldiers to have ever won two Congressional Medals of Honor. Forget posting the ten commandments; these are the words that need to be read in every public place:
"The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
Could FOX News live with this? Does the truth sell advertising?
"The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket."
Could FOX News live with this? Does the truth sell advertising?
The Horror!
Oh my God. Somehow in channel surfing I've stumbled onto the 25th annual Prescott Bush Awards. For all of those who do not know, Prescott Bush was the criminal grandfather of the current pretender to the Presidency. Prescott was successfully prosecuted by the U.S. Government during WWII for "doing business with the enemy" (he was the Nazi's banker of choice - even a full year after Nazi Germany declared war on the U.S.).
Why is this family still causing Americans to suffer?
Why is this family still causing Americans to suffer?
Thursday, July 10, 2003
How Truely Strange
In a very strange story our favorite idiot evangilist (Pat Robertson) complains that Bush is rude to his own pet African dictator. As much as I dislike Dubyah, I have to appreciate anyone who can make Reverand Pat whine like this.
The Iraqi People Are Free ?
Several times in the last couple of days listening to sound bites from Shrub's whirlwind tour of Africa I have been struck by his repeating that whatever the "facts" about the case for war, the outcome is good because "the Iraqi people are free." Well, sorry, but I don't understand what that means. Sure, they are "free" of Saddam (maybe, since we don't know where he is or what he is doing), but in any meaningful real life application, the Iraqi people are far from free. They have no vote, they have no representation, they have no influence with those in power and those in power were not only not elected by the Iraqis, they weren't elected by anyone! Bremer, the day-to-day decision maker in Iraq, came out of nowhere as a Bush appointee. None of us know who this man is or why he is in this position. Maybe that's fine for us, but for an ordinary Iraqi, this is the guy who makes things happen. How can we chirp about "democracy" and all that jazz while inflicting some politically connected bureuacrat on a defeated country and expecting them to think it means they are "free"?
There is a lesson here for those who are willing to see it. The typical Bush speech is full of these 'bumper sticker' ideas that sound good as long as one doesn't actually look at them closely enough to see that there is "no 'there' there". I personally am waiting for Bush to try that simplistic economic stump speech (which apparently is his entire understanding of economics) with the Iraqis, about tax breaks leaving more money for people who want to provide a "goodorservice" and thus generate the Paradise of free enterprise and democracy. Given that Iraq, even before our invasion, was suffering from 12 years of sanctions that had decimated the economy and reduced their standard of living to a lower level than what it had been in a century, don't you think the average Iraqi might be forgiven for thinking that the Americans are basically a bunch of out of touch hypocrits? Or liars? Or worse?
There is a lesson here for those who are willing to see it. The typical Bush speech is full of these 'bumper sticker' ideas that sound good as long as one doesn't actually look at them closely enough to see that there is "no 'there' there". I personally am waiting for Bush to try that simplistic economic stump speech (which apparently is his entire understanding of economics) with the Iraqis, about tax breaks leaving more money for people who want to provide a "goodorservice" and thus generate the Paradise of free enterprise and democracy. Given that Iraq, even before our invasion, was suffering from 12 years of sanctions that had decimated the economy and reduced their standard of living to a lower level than what it had been in a century, don't you think the average Iraqi might be forgiven for thinking that the Americans are basically a bunch of out of touch hypocrits? Or liars? Or worse?
What Bush Learned in Business School
Richard Cohen has a very good piece in the Washington Post discussing the number of Bush positions that have had to be "restated" when they turned out not to be true.
Fantasy is as Good as Truth for Right Wingers
In National Review Online we find an interesting piece of right wing rationalization by James S. Robbins. It seems that the Bush administration's stretching of the truth about the Nigerian uranian connection with Irag - though made up - should be considered insignificant because:
This is old information and not meant to try to substantiate the more recent claims, but it is important to discuss the issue with the benefit of some baseline facts. Saddam was a major buyer of African uranium in the years before the Gulf War; based on recent discoveries we know he retained a capability to reconstitute his nuclear program when the opportunity presented itself; and it would be reasonable to assume that he would seek replacement uranium for the hundreds of tons destroyed in earlier rounds of inspections. That is not intelligence so much as inference, but if one accepts the model, it is easy to see how someone might be overly eager to accept supporting evidence from a foreign intelligence service. Is this the stuff of congressional investigations? Must be a slow summer.
I continue to be amazed at how easily the Bush folks are willing to be comforted at whatever facile excuse is offered for behavior that they would have widely comdemned had it been done by Clinton (or any Democrat for that matter). Gee, maybe the Communists were right about something after all, it seems the Right actually believe that the End justifies the Means. Go figure.
This is old information and not meant to try to substantiate the more recent claims, but it is important to discuss the issue with the benefit of some baseline facts. Saddam was a major buyer of African uranium in the years before the Gulf War; based on recent discoveries we know he retained a capability to reconstitute his nuclear program when the opportunity presented itself; and it would be reasonable to assume that he would seek replacement uranium for the hundreds of tons destroyed in earlier rounds of inspections. That is not intelligence so much as inference, but if one accepts the model, it is easy to see how someone might be overly eager to accept supporting evidence from a foreign intelligence service. Is this the stuff of congressional investigations? Must be a slow summer.
I continue to be amazed at how easily the Bush folks are willing to be comforted at whatever facile excuse is offered for behavior that they would have widely comdemned had it been done by Clinton (or any Democrat for that matter). Gee, maybe the Communists were right about something after all, it seems the Right actually believe that the End justifies the Means. Go figure.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Politics As Usual
Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman report in Common Dreams that both major political parties take money from criminals:
The two major political parties are crooked.
Without shame, they take big money from criminals.
Corporate Crime Reporter last week released a report documenting $9.3 million given by convicted criminals to the Democrats and the Republicans in the 2002 election cycle. (See the full report, "Dirty Money: Corporate Criminal Donations to the Two Major Parties," at www.corporatecrimereporter.com)
The Democrats took $2.1 million of the dirty money, the Republicans took $7.2 million.
Gee, do we feel good that the Dems took less crooked money? Or do we despair that they will always be outgrossed by the Republicans? Tough choice in a world where the amount of cash always seems more important than its origins.
The two major political parties are crooked.
Without shame, they take big money from criminals.
Corporate Crime Reporter last week released a report documenting $9.3 million given by convicted criminals to the Democrats and the Republicans in the 2002 election cycle. (See the full report, "Dirty Money: Corporate Criminal Donations to the Two Major Parties," at www.corporatecrimereporter.com)
The Democrats took $2.1 million of the dirty money, the Republicans took $7.2 million.
Gee, do we feel good that the Dems took less crooked money? Or do we despair that they will always be outgrossed by the Republicans? Tough choice in a world where the amount of cash always seems more important than its origins.
The ACLU Hammers the Unpatriotic 'Patriot Act'
Talk Left points to an ACLU press release that severly criticizes the Bush Justice Dept:
The American Civil Liberties Union today said that it has found a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Department of Justice in statements to the media and Congress, statements that mischaracterize the scope, potential impact and likely harm of the now-notorious USA PATRIOT Act.
This calls to mind the Robin Williams' comedy routine where he reminds us that Missouri voters, in a choice between John Ashcroft and a dead man - elected the dead man (as he says, "Sorry John, the Dead Man scares us less than you do").
The American Civil Liberties Union today said that it has found a consistent pattern of factually inaccurate assertions by the Department of Justice in statements to the media and Congress, statements that mischaracterize the scope, potential impact and likely harm of the now-notorious USA PATRIOT Act.
This calls to mind the Robin Williams' comedy routine where he reminds us that Missouri voters, in a choice between John Ashcroft and a dead man - elected the dead man (as he says, "Sorry John, the Dead Man scares us less than you do").
Does This Get Reported?
I have to confess, I hate the sound of Wolf Blitzer's voice so much I turn him off whenever I encounter him on TV, so I don't know if any of these question of the day queries ever gets reported, but those I see online all seem to be very much at variance with the official CNN position. For example, today's, Should Congress launch a formal inquiry into President Bush's handling of Iraq intelligence? has, as of this time tonight, 13,466 votes which break down with 92% in favor and only 8% against. This sounds like a huge majority want an investigation. Hardly an endorsement of Dubyah's position.
Lies All Around
In This Modern World a story is reported from Capitol Hill Blue that supposidly supports claims that eye witnesses say that Bush knew he was lying about the Iraq atomic "evidence" used in his State of the Union address. However, a later story from the same source says that the first story was the result of being conned.
Is nothing sacred? Trust me, guys, you don't have to lie about the Bushies. The dirt is all there and out in the open. The only mystery is why all the media pundits work so hard not to see it. For instance, all night tonight on FOX and MSNBC, the talking heads are worrying about why Bush is not irrate that he has been "misled". Well Duhhh! It's because he wasn't misled. If he's angry at anything it's that this particular issue actually is getting air time. He's used to having anything he says accepted at face value and not subjected to any review at all. How else could he get away with the bogus "no child left behind", "Compassionate Conservatism", "faith based initiatives", tax cuts for the rich as a "jobs and growth package", etc, etc, ETC! After all, he's "a uniter, not a divider." Right? He's united the rest of the world against us and is well on the way to uniting the Democrats for the first time in decades.
We can only hope.
Is nothing sacred? Trust me, guys, you don't have to lie about the Bushies. The dirt is all there and out in the open. The only mystery is why all the media pundits work so hard not to see it. For instance, all night tonight on FOX and MSNBC, the talking heads are worrying about why Bush is not irrate that he has been "misled". Well Duhhh! It's because he wasn't misled. If he's angry at anything it's that this particular issue actually is getting air time. He's used to having anything he says accepted at face value and not subjected to any review at all. How else could he get away with the bogus "no child left behind", "Compassionate Conservatism", "faith based initiatives", tax cuts for the rich as a "jobs and growth package", etc, etc, ETC! After all, he's "a uniter, not a divider." Right? He's united the rest of the world against us and is well on the way to uniting the Democrats for the first time in decades.
We can only hope.
Government Obstructs 9/11 Probe
The panel charged with investigating the 9/11 attacks is charging that elements of the Bush administration are hampering its work.
A lack of cooperation from the Bush administration could hamper an independent inquiry into the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the commission's leaders say.
"The task in front of us is monumental, and time is slipping by," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission's chairman. "Every day lost complicates our work."
Kean and the panel's vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, gave a blunt status report Tuesday after arriving in Washington for the commission's third public hearing, to be held Wednesday on Capitol Hill. The hearing focuses on terrorism, al-Qaida and the Muslim world.
Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey, and Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana, singled out government departments including Defense and Justice that they said were not cooperating fully with the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Why am I not surprised at this?
A lack of cooperation from the Bush administration could hamper an independent inquiry into the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the commission's leaders say.
"The task in front of us is monumental, and time is slipping by," said Thomas H. Kean, the commission's chairman. "Every day lost complicates our work."
Kean and the panel's vice chairman, Lee Hamilton, gave a blunt status report Tuesday after arriving in Washington for the commission's third public hearing, to be held Wednesday on Capitol Hill. The hearing focuses on terrorism, al-Qaida and the Muslim world.
Kean, a Republican former governor of New Jersey, and Hamilton, a Democratic former congressman from Indiana, singled out government departments including Defense and Justice that they said were not cooperating fully with the 10-member National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.
Why am I not surprised at this?
Savage Crawls
In an effort to distance himself from the ugly remarks that got him fired by MSNBC, Michael Savage posts a lame excuse on his website:
What happened on the air is much different than what is being reported. It was in the middle of an airline horror story segment with a great set (see photos above). Out of nowhere a crank caller from a competitive talk show went from describing his airline horror story to making vicious personal attacks against me. I signaled and thought that this crank caller was cut from the air. His insults continued in my ear piece and I reacted to him personally as an individual who was attacking me to defend myself.
Unfortunately, my personal comments to this crank caller were broadcast. In no way did my comments reflect my views of disease and suffering in any way. I have spent my entire life in the field of alternative medicine trying to heal the world and bring comfort to the sick. If my comments brought pain to anyone I certainly did not intend for this to happen and apologize for any such reaction.
Let me repeat, this was an interchange between me personally and a mean spirited vicious setup caller which I thought was taking place off the air. It was not meant to reflect my views of the terrible tragedy and suffering associated with AIDS. I especially appeal to my many listeners in the gay community to accept my apologies for any inadvertent insults which may have occurred.
OH PULEZEE.
What happened on the air is much different than what is being reported. It was in the middle of an airline horror story segment with a great set (see photos above). Out of nowhere a crank caller from a competitive talk show went from describing his airline horror story to making vicious personal attacks against me. I signaled and thought that this crank caller was cut from the air. His insults continued in my ear piece and I reacted to him personally as an individual who was attacking me to defend myself.
Unfortunately, my personal comments to this crank caller were broadcast. In no way did my comments reflect my views of disease and suffering in any way. I have spent my entire life in the field of alternative medicine trying to heal the world and bring comfort to the sick. If my comments brought pain to anyone I certainly did not intend for this to happen and apologize for any such reaction.
Let me repeat, this was an interchange between me personally and a mean spirited vicious setup caller which I thought was taking place off the air. It was not meant to reflect my views of the terrible tragedy and suffering associated with AIDS. I especially appeal to my many listeners in the gay community to accept my apologies for any inadvertent insults which may have occurred.
OH PULEZEE.
Hey! Pay Attention.
Bush Watch discusses Maureen Dowd's contention that Bush displays all the symptoms of Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD):
"*I find my mind wandering from tasks that are uninteresting or difficult
*I say things without thinking and later regret having said them."
*I make quick decisions without thinking enough about their possible bad results
*I have a quick temper, a short fuse
*I have trouble planning in what order to do a series of tasks or activities
*"In group activities it is hard for me to wait my turn."
*I usually work on more than one project at a time, and fail to finish many of them."
I'd be a whole lot happier if this were not so close to the mark.
"*I find my mind wandering from tasks that are uninteresting or difficult
*I say things without thinking and later regret having said them."
*I make quick decisions without thinking enough about their possible bad results
*I have a quick temper, a short fuse
*I have trouble planning in what order to do a series of tasks or activities
*"In group activities it is hard for me to wait my turn."
*I usually work on more than one project at a time, and fail to finish many of them."
I'd be a whole lot happier if this were not so close to the mark.
Tuesday, July 08, 2003
Brief Intelligence Better Than None
Check out Brief Intelligence, a site that has a lot to say, even when only linking.
America, We Hardly Knew Ye
A great dystopian imagination of what is in store for us if we keep on in the same direction we are currently headed is presented in this Orwellian vision. I don't know about you, but this makes me want to prepare an escape route now.
Shrub discovers Black Folk!
How interesting. Bush, just in time for the general prep for the upcoming presidential election, has discovered Black Folk. Of course, he has discovered them in some other country. It is safe to offer help to blacks in Africa - it is mythic, far from home and a little aid will go a long way (maybe). Here at home it is safer to restrict one's focus to a couple of token figures such as Condee Rice and Colin Powell (the majority of American citizens of color are SOL under this administration). Can the Democrats make the case with blacks who have been a taken for granted part of their coalition for some time? If not, they don't have much chance of taking back the Presidency. Blacks have a great deal of power as a voting block - IF THEY MOBILIZE. This ia a real chance to make a difference - for their own interests and for the country.
What Would Jesus Do - if he were Dubyah?
Charles Sulliven has an interesting piece in Counter Punch about Bush's casting of himself as a Christian - despite his seeming lust for subjecting others to blood and pain. Since Bush and his minions are such obvious liars, how is it that a majority of the public allows him to characterize himself as a Christian? As the Yul Brynner character in "The King And I" says, "It is a puzzelment."
Adios, Asshole
Alas, we have to say goodbye to our favorite media creep. While I am both amazed and thankful that Michael Savage was fired, I remain puzzled as to why he was ever hired in the first place. MSNBC deserves to be severly punished by the public for the bad faith involved in giving voice to such a nasty, evil man. The world is rotten enough without adding to the ugliness with vicious, fowl mouthed cretins like Savage. Am I clear enough about how I feel about this man? A commercial enterprise that seeks to add to its bottom line by appealing to the lowest and worst aspect of its audience has a lot to account for. We can't afford to forget. It's time for us to begin the process of marginalizing and eventually starving to death, those media outlets that work against the best interests of the public. Fox and MSNBC are only a couple of the most obvious examples of enterprises that need to be deprived of our attention and support.
Sunday, July 06, 2003
On Running the Country Like A Business
Dubyah likes to act as though he is a man of great business savy, and as the only CEO, MBA President he is the perfect example to use to evaluate the oft repeated mantra that the country should be run more like a business (Enron?). The Likely Story has a good overview of the misconception that Republicans are good for business and Democrats are bad, and that therefore Repubs would be better for the economy. This common sense view, however, is simply not true and has been widely debunked. But the actual facts are so striking that they bear repeating. An overview of the average GDP during all 20th century president's administrations since WWII is striking:
Average Annual Real GDP Growth
-----------------------------------
Johnson:……5.08
Kennedy:……4.60
Truman:……3.88
Clinton:…… 3.70
Reagan:……3.36
Carter:…… 3.28
Eisenhower:……2.96
Nixon/Ford:……2.79
GHW Bush:…… 1.95
GW Bush :……1.35
Average for Democratic Presidents: 4.03%
Average for Republican Presidents: 2.78%
Given the present state of the economy wouldn't you think that savy businessmen would recongize that the future of their business is in jeopardy as long as the current Bush policies are in place? Business can't long survive without customers and with unemployment at 6.4% and growing, and the tax burden on average citizens increasing as State and local governments have to find additional sources of revenue to make up for the federal tax breaks for the super rich, the prospects for a real economic recovery seem dim.
Come on, think about it - 1.35 %. This is pitifull! The worst performance of any president in 60 years. The country simply can't afford it. Things were better during Carter's administration - and I well remember how bad they were then. We have to get rid of this guy. As Howard Dean says, "The Republicans are terrible with the economy." It's time to make this truth clear to everyone. We have to take our country back from the Kleptocracy soon or there will be no country left to salvage.
Friday, July 04, 2003
Looting America
The Washington Monthly has a great piece about the Republican Party's rapacious approach to securing power while making a profit (is America a great country or what?) and Atrios does a masterful job of summarizing the Loot, Repeat strategy:
(1) Target: Pick an existing government revenue stream
(2) Transmit memes: Focus on the Mighty Wurlitzer on the target
(3) Privatize: Write the legislation "privatizing" the revenue stream
(4) Loot: Steer the privatized service to a wired (Republican) firm, and
(5) Repeat: Take a payoff from the wired firm, as campaign contributions or otherwise. With the payoff money, return to step (1) and pick new targets.
One would think this strategy would be ovious to Americans by now but that doesn't seem to be the case.
(1) Target: Pick an existing government revenue stream
(2) Transmit memes: Focus on the Mighty Wurlitzer on the target
(3) Privatize: Write the legislation "privatizing" the revenue stream
(4) Loot: Steer the privatized service to a wired (Republican) firm, and
(5) Repeat: Take a payoff from the wired firm, as campaign contributions or otherwise. With the payoff money, return to step (1) and pick new targets.
One would think this strategy would be ovious to Americans by now but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
Bloggus Interruptus
Starting a new job in a new state. No easy access to the internet until next week, so no - or few - postings in the interim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
