By way of James Carvelle's latest book, this observation made my Thanksgiving weekend: according to former Senator Bob Kerrey, " 'Rick Santorum' is Latin for 'Asshole'."
Monday, December 01, 2003
Sunday, November 30, 2003
Christmas Comes to the White House
I just took a walk on this chilly Sunday morning down the street to check out the Texas neighbors. Of course, the Bush family circus is back home on the brush farm in Crawford for another week long rest up, but in their absence the rent-a-decor folks are busy installing all the Christmas trimmins - garlands for the White House porch, wreaths for the gates, and outsized red ribbons for the iron fence. Even the White House tree, which was being manhandled from a semi by a crew on the officially closed portion of Pennsylvania Ave directly in front of the official abode.
There is something really disturbing to me about a man who starts a war, invading a country that poses no threat to us and is not even in a position to mount a realistic defense, causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent, ordinary people, including hundreds of American men and women, imposing a huge financial burden on ordinary citizens now and far into the future, and costing us the good will of most of the world's populace, decorating his home in celebration of the birthday of the Prince of Peace.
And people claimed that Bill Clinton was a hypocrite.
There is something really disturbing to me about a man who starts a war, invading a country that poses no threat to us and is not even in a position to mount a realistic defense, causing the unnecessary deaths of thousands of innocent, ordinary people, including hundreds of American men and women, imposing a huge financial burden on ordinary citizens now and far into the future, and costing us the good will of most of the world's populace, decorating his home in celebration of the birthday of the Prince of Peace.
And people claimed that Bill Clinton was a hypocrite.
Family Values, Bush-style
Remember when, after 9/11, Bush suggested that what Americans really needed to do to thwart terrorists was to travel and shop? Little did we realize how dangerous that could be:
Ah, the Christmas spirit. God bless us everyone.
A woman shopping in Florida has been trampled by bargain hunters who stepped over her as she suffered a seizure on the floor of a department store.
Television station WKMG Local 6 reported Patricia Van Lester waited in line for three hours early Friday to buy a DVD player on sale at a Wal-Mart store in Orange City, Florida. When the doors opened at 6am, she entered and picked up a DVD player but was knocked to the ground by the crowd that had gathered for the start of the Christmas shopping season.
Van Lester hit her head on the floor, lost consciousness and suffered a seizure, while others in the crowd stepped over her. Paramedics were called and arrived to find shoppers ignoring the 41-year-old who was still unconscious.
She was flown to a hospital in Daytona Beach, Florida, where she is expected to be kept for several days.
Ah, the Christmas spirit. God bless us everyone.
Saturday, November 29, 2003
The Good News, the Bad News
According to The Emerging Democratic Majority, The Good News Is the Medicare Bill Passed, The Bad News Is the Medicare Bill Passed.
Bush vs America's Kids
Maybe this is the actual idea behind the No Child Left Behind Act, a school district in Cheshire, CT simply walks away from the program because it is too complex and restrictive:
The No Child Left Behind Act has turned out to be a kind of poison for local school districts. Its arbitrary all-or-nothing kind of categorization, along with the absolute requirements to demonstrate specific quantitative improvement annually whether that level of change is possible or not, insures that many otherwise excellent schools will "fail". No room for human judgment or unique circumstances have been provided for. Plus, as is so often the case with federally mandated programs and standards, huge overhead costs have been imposed but not funded in the law.
The only clear beneficiary of NCLB is Educational Testing Service (ETS), the nation's largest provider of standardized tests, that stands to make many millions of dollars of profit from this law. The losers are likely to be the students who will be the victim of this bureaucratic nonsense year after year. Being "left behind" may turn out to be the least of their worries, for ironically, the Bush administration, supposedly conservative and opposed to big government, has created one of the largest, most intrusive, draconian bureaucratic entities to have ever been imposed on local Americans. This law, more than anything else the federal government has ever done, stands to restrict local freedom and choice for millions of Americans for decades to come. And despite the rhetoric and "good intentions", no positive result can reasonably be predicted.
So Bush like.
Cheshire is one of only three school districts in the nation to have done this. And its superintendent, David Cressy, may have found a lone chink in the sweeping education reform act. Still, he insists the move was more administrative than political - practical rather than renegade.
But scratch the surface, and another story unfolds - a quiet manifestation of nationwide frustration with the new federal education law. Few school districts are in a financial position to be able to take the stand that the 5,100-student Cheshire district has. But for many, the idea of simply walking away from the complications of the nation's education overhaul might have tremendous appeal.
The No Child Left Behind Act has turned out to be a kind of poison for local school districts. Its arbitrary all-or-nothing kind of categorization, along with the absolute requirements to demonstrate specific quantitative improvement annually whether that level of change is possible or not, insures that many otherwise excellent schools will "fail". No room for human judgment or unique circumstances have been provided for. Plus, as is so often the case with federally mandated programs and standards, huge overhead costs have been imposed but not funded in the law.
"I'm not sure you'll find many educators who are fans of NCLB," says Anne Sweeney, principal of Chapman Elementary School.
A recent study by the research group Public Agenda found that nearly 9 in 10 superintendents and principals have embraced standards and accountability. But only 5 percent of superintendents and 4 percent of principals believe NCLB will work as it stands today.
. . .
The most piercing criticism of NCLB has been aimed at the tangle of sanctions that await schools that don't measure up.
Penalties include requiring under- performing schools to pay for students to attend higher-performing schools, or provide them with extra services, like private tutoring. After three years of inadequate progress, a school's staff may be replaced. And after five years, the school can be taken over by the state.
The only clear beneficiary of NCLB is Educational Testing Service (ETS), the nation's largest provider of standardized tests, that stands to make many millions of dollars of profit from this law. The losers are likely to be the students who will be the victim of this bureaucratic nonsense year after year. Being "left behind" may turn out to be the least of their worries, for ironically, the Bush administration, supposedly conservative and opposed to big government, has created one of the largest, most intrusive, draconian bureaucratic entities to have ever been imposed on local Americans. This law, more than anything else the federal government has ever done, stands to restrict local freedom and choice for millions of Americans for decades to come. And despite the rhetoric and "good intentions", no positive result can reasonably be predicted.
So Bush like.
Friday, November 28, 2003
Be Careful What You Wish For
As much as we want to see Dubyah leave D.C. and go home to Crawford for good, the challenge that will face his replacement is daunting. No American public figure since Sherman has left so much scorched earth to be revived and nurtured back to health as has this president. In virtually every area of foreign and domestic policy, the next president will find a deliberate ruin, a wasteland of debt, corporate pork, deceit, abrogated treaties, sabotaged negotiations, bribed and coerced officials, compromised "science", ignored and eviscerated regulations, starved regulatory bodies, extreme right wing religious influence in the judiciary and legislative branches, unsupportable tax laws, oppressive military spending, police state powers that threaten the legitimate government itself, and a public media owned and operated for the benefit of the wealthiest and most conservative forces in American society.
Faced with such a landscape - what can the new president do? This is something we need to start considering now. We may very well be able to effect a transition from this administration to another we feel more aligned with, but how will the new guy manage to pick up the pieces from this great train wreck that Bushco has deliberately created? This is not an insignificant problem. No president in American history has ever had the problem of rebuilding the country from scratch after it has been so completely and systematically looted and sabotaged by a previous administration.
The new president will have to repair international relations that have not been at such a low ebb for the U. S. in all of its history. He will be faced with a huge debt that will require an increase in taxation and/or cutting government spending - neither conducive to popular support. He will have to revisit multiple issues of regulation that will cause strong opposition from business. He will have to force certain issues of civil liberties to be reconsidered by the population as a whole, challenge public media for its private, corporate bias, fight for a balance between public and private forces in their impact on government policy, restart a public dialogue focused on the future of the nation and the world, engage all levels of U. S. society in a common enterprise aimed at rebuilding a sense of community and patriotic public spirit, calm the fears that have been deliberately cultivated during the past few years, and help American citizens to accept the prospect of a future and a world outside our country, that is not necessarily threatening and evil.
It is going to be one helluva difficult job. If Bush is elected to a second term, it will be, when it comes, an almost impossible job.
Faced with such a landscape - what can the new president do? This is something we need to start considering now. We may very well be able to effect a transition from this administration to another we feel more aligned with, but how will the new guy manage to pick up the pieces from this great train wreck that Bushco has deliberately created? This is not an insignificant problem. No president in American history has ever had the problem of rebuilding the country from scratch after it has been so completely and systematically looted and sabotaged by a previous administration.
The new president will have to repair international relations that have not been at such a low ebb for the U. S. in all of its history. He will be faced with a huge debt that will require an increase in taxation and/or cutting government spending - neither conducive to popular support. He will have to revisit multiple issues of regulation that will cause strong opposition from business. He will have to force certain issues of civil liberties to be reconsidered by the population as a whole, challenge public media for its private, corporate bias, fight for a balance between public and private forces in their impact on government policy, restart a public dialogue focused on the future of the nation and the world, engage all levels of U. S. society in a common enterprise aimed at rebuilding a sense of community and patriotic public spirit, calm the fears that have been deliberately cultivated during the past few years, and help American citizens to accept the prospect of a future and a world outside our country, that is not necessarily threatening and evil.
It is going to be one helluva difficult job. If Bush is elected to a second term, it will be, when it comes, an almost impossible job.
Bush vs the Troops, Again: Part II
One specific part of Bush's remarks to the troops he shared Thanksgiving dinner with is worth looking at closely. He repeated something that has become a common mantra of his administration:
This is such a stupid and disingenuous remark that I continue to be surprised that people allow him to get away with it. In order for this statement to make any sense at all, all terrorists would have to actually be in Iraq and we would have to be able to identify and defeat all of them. In truth, as most of us know, there are terrorists in most countries in the world, we have no idea who they are in advance, and thus have no way to defeat them.
Rather than defeating "the terrorists", the war in Iraq has served to swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. According to Britain's The Guardian:
Thus the "war" on terrorism is very much like the "war" on drugs, wherein every action taken by our government to deal with the problem actually exacerbates the problem. With the war on drugs, our various efforts - costing billions of dollars of taxpayer's money - serve to keep the price of drugs high enough to continue to make illegal drug trafficing profitable, thus insuring that it continues even in the face of strong anti drug police action. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, our heavy handed military attacks on muslim countries, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries and widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, inspire fanatical - indeed, suicidal, resistance.
The president goes on to say that:
Alas, it isn't at all clear what "our cause" is, much less that is is "just." We were sold the war as a preventive attack in order to "disarm" Saddam. Now it seems that he had none of the WMDs that we were going to take away from him. SO, those have been conveniently forgotten and now we are supposed to focus on the liberation of Iraq. That is also a problem, for when Bush says "the Iraqis want their freedom" he is no doubt correct. However, it seems that they mostly want to be free of us.
"You are defeating the terrorists here in Iraq, so that we don't have to face them in our own country."
This is such a stupid and disingenuous remark that I continue to be surprised that people allow him to get away with it. In order for this statement to make any sense at all, all terrorists would have to actually be in Iraq and we would have to be able to identify and defeat all of them. In truth, as most of us know, there are terrorists in most countries in the world, we have no idea who they are in advance, and thus have no way to defeat them.
Rather than defeating "the terrorists", the war in Iraq has served to swell the ranks of terrorist organizations. According to Britain's The Guardian:
War in Iraq has swollen the ranks of al-Qaida and "galvanised its will" by increasing radical passions among Muslims, an authoritative think-tank said yesterday.
The warning, echoing earlier ones by MI5 and MI6, was made in the annual report of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, The Military Balance.
It said US claims after the invasion of Iraq that al-Qaida was on the run, and that the "war on terror" had turned the corner, were "over-confident". John Chipman, the institute's director, warned that the full effect of the war might never be known, because of the chaos it had left behind.
Thus the "war" on terrorism is very much like the "war" on drugs, wherein every action taken by our government to deal with the problem actually exacerbates the problem. With the war on drugs, our various efforts - costing billions of dollars of taxpayer's money - serve to keep the price of drugs high enough to continue to make illegal drug trafficing profitable, thus insuring that it continues even in the face of strong anti drug police action. Likewise, in the war on terrorism, our heavy handed military attacks on muslim countries, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths and injuries and widespread destruction of property and infrastructure, inspire fanatical - indeed, suicidal, resistance.
The president goes on to say that:
"We will prevail. We will win because our cause is just. We will win because we will stay on the offensive. And we will win because you're part of the finest military ever assembled. And we will prevail because the Iraqis want their freedom. "
Alas, it isn't at all clear what "our cause" is, much less that is is "just." We were sold the war as a preventive attack in order to "disarm" Saddam. Now it seems that he had none of the WMDs that we were going to take away from him. SO, those have been conveniently forgotten and now we are supposed to focus on the liberation of Iraq. That is also a problem, for when Bush says "the Iraqis want their freedom" he is no doubt correct. However, it seems that they mostly want to be free of us.
Bush vs the Troops, Again
President Bush's "stealth" trip to Baghdad for his latest shameless photo op with U. S. troops, is receiving the expected amount of media attention, mostly positive, largely uncritical and unreflective. The Washington Post reports his message to the troops without comment, despite its serious shortcomings. Consider this line:
A quick Google search will reveal numerous citations of Bush speaking of "the oath" he took and always in connection with defending America, yet the Presidential Oath of Office says nothing about defending the country. Rather, it obligates the president to defend the Constitution:
That's it. Nothing about defending the country, protecting citizens from terrorists, attacking suspected "threats." The president is obligated by his oath to protect that document that was designed to insure the very freedoms and rights that he professes to believe in but has actively suppressed in favor of "fighting terrorism."
On this president's watch, police powers and arbitrary policies of the federal government have been dramatically expanded so that - contrary to the constitution's specifications - we are no longer free from unwarranted searches and seizures, we are no longer guaranteed the right to freedom of the press and assembly, we are not even assured of a trial by a jury of our peers, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, or in many cases, the right to vote.
Worse, the president, against the specific instructions of the constitution, has arrogated to himself the right to declare war, even when it violates international agreements - which by extension are (according to the constitution itself) to be considered part of the constitution once they have been ratified.
So, the long and short of it is this - "president" Bush has violated his oath of office but isn't called on it, while at the same time he is allowed to brag about keeping an oath he didn't make.
It is a shame that we don't really have a free press any more in this country. The servile Washington Post, which pretends to a kind of limp journalistic objectivity, refuses to comment on such obvious bad faith statements as those Bush regularly employs. We - and the troops - are the losers in such a situation. The president gets to say any stupid and insincere thing he wants with impunity - and others always suffer the consequences.
"Together, you and I have taken an oath to defend our country."
A quick Google search will reveal numerous citations of Bush speaking of "the oath" he took and always in connection with defending America, yet the Presidential Oath of Office says nothing about defending the country. Rather, it obligates the president to defend the Constitution:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That's it. Nothing about defending the country, protecting citizens from terrorists, attacking suspected "threats." The president is obligated by his oath to protect that document that was designed to insure the very freedoms and rights that he professes to believe in but has actively suppressed in favor of "fighting terrorism."
On this president's watch, police powers and arbitrary policies of the federal government have been dramatically expanded so that - contrary to the constitution's specifications - we are no longer free from unwarranted searches and seizures, we are no longer guaranteed the right to freedom of the press and assembly, we are not even assured of a trial by a jury of our peers, or freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, or in many cases, the right to vote.
Worse, the president, against the specific instructions of the constitution, has arrogated to himself the right to declare war, even when it violates international agreements - which by extension are (according to the constitution itself) to be considered part of the constitution once they have been ratified.
So, the long and short of it is this - "president" Bush has violated his oath of office but isn't called on it, while at the same time he is allowed to brag about keeping an oath he didn't make.
It is a shame that we don't really have a free press any more in this country. The servile Washington Post, which pretends to a kind of limp journalistic objectivity, refuses to comment on such obvious bad faith statements as those Bush regularly employs. We - and the troops - are the losers in such a situation. The president gets to say any stupid and insincere thing he wants with impunity - and others always suffer the consequences.
Things You Have To Believe To Be A Republican
This, of course, is just a partial list. All of us are invited to add our own:
o Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you’re a conservative radio host. Then it’s an illness and you need our prayers for your recovery.
o The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq.
o Government should relax regulation of Big Business and Big Money but crack down on individuals who use marijuana to relieve the pain of illness.
o “Standing Tall for America” means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.
o A woman can’t be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.
o Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.
o The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans’ benefits and combat pay.
o Group sex and drug use are degenerate sins unless you someday run for governor of California as a Republican.
o If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won’t have sex.
o A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our long-time allies, then demand their cooperation and money.
o HMOs and insurance companies have the interest of the public at heart.
o Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.
o Global warming and tobacco’s link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.
o Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush’s daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a “we can’t find Bin Laden” diversion.
o A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense. A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.
o Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.
o The public has a right to know about Hillary’s cattle trades, but George Bush’s driving record is none of our business.
o You support states’ rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have a right to adopt.
o What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the ’80s is irrelevant.
o Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.
Tuesday, November 25, 2003
Bush vs Truth
Via Eric Alterman in a really good reference to a piece by Richard Cohen:
Alas, that has all changed now.
Quote of the day: “I love my country and I love the truth and I always thought the best thing about being an American is that you don’t have to choose.”
Alas, that has all changed now.
Bush vs Free Speech
Remember when last week in England Bush was asked about the many protestors of his visit and he said he appreciated free speech. Well, that seems unlikely given his track record - most recently in Colorado when he spoke to the troops yesterday:
Of course, he did meet privately with family's of a number of slain servicemen - and that, I think, was a first (and probably prompted by criticism of his meeting with family's of British dead but not Americans). But of course we can't know what was said, because - like everything else about the Bush presidency - it is a secret.
Before the press was herded into the giant hangar in advance of George W. Bush's pep rally/photo op with the Fort Carson troops, we were given the rules.
No talking to the troops before the rally.
No talking to the troops during the rally.
No talking to the troops after the rally.
In other words, if I've done the math right, that means no conversation at all - at least, while on base - with any soldiers. After all, who knows where that kind of thing could lead?
Just as an example: It could lead to a discussion about why the president has time to get to so many fund-raisers and no time to attend a single funeral of a soldier killed in Iraq.
Of course, he did meet privately with family's of a number of slain servicemen - and that, I think, was a first (and probably prompted by criticism of his meeting with family's of British dead but not Americans). But of course we can't know what was said, because - like everything else about the Bush presidency - it is a secret.
Bush vs Family Values
Remembering that the Republicans are the party of "family values" and that Dubyah was going to restore honor to the White House makes the current revelations about his sleazy brother Neil ironically pleasing:
Obviously. They aren't interested in his expertise, they're interested in his connection to the president of the United States. Just as early investors in George W's always failing oil enterprises were not interested in oil so much as access. Oh well, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Dubyah may well wish he were an only child before this is over:
Wonder what "born again" and his brother talk about when they are together. At least they seem to have a fondness for money in common, but they may have other interests as well:
Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.
According to legal documents disclosed today, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.
Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.
"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown in the March 4 deposition, which was seen by Reuters.
"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded.
Obviously. They aren't interested in his expertise, they're interested in his connection to the president of the United States. Just as early investors in George W's always failing oil enterprises were not interested in oil so much as access. Oh well, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, Dubyah may well wish he were an only child before this is over:
The Bush divorce, completed in April, was prompted in part by Bush's relationship with another woman. He admitted in the deposition that he previously had sex with several other women while on trips to Thailand and Hong Kong at least five years ago.
The women, he said, simply knocked on the door of his hotel room, entered and engaged in sex with him. He said he did not know if they were prostitutes because they never asked for money and he did not pay them.
"Mr Bush, you have to admit it's a pretty remarkable thing for a man just to go to a hotel room door and open it and have a woman standing there and have sex with her," Brown said.
"It was very unusual," Bush said.
Even though the Bush divorce is final, legal problems continue.
Sharon Bush has been sued by Robert Andrews, the former husband of Neil Bush's girlfriend, Maria Andrews, for allegedly charging that the Andrews' 2-year-old son, was fathered by Bush, not Andrews.
Bush this week gave a DNA sample at the request of his ex-wife, but it is not clear when it will be tested, her lawyer, David Berg, said today.
Wonder what "born again" and his brother talk about when they are together. At least they seem to have a fondness for money in common, but they may have other interests as well:
At the Republican National Convention in 1988, he was asked by a Hartford Courant reporter about what he and his father talked about when they weren't talking about politics.
"PUSSY," Bush replied.
Monday, November 24, 2003
Bush vs Any Sense of Shame
Today our miserable failure of a president signed the largest military appropriations bill ever, totaling over $401 billion. Not being one to ever miss out on an embarrassingly tawdry photo op, he then stopped - on his way home for a week at the "ranch" - at Fort Carson, Colorado, where - dressed in a military jumpsuit (a shameless affectation no other president has ever lowered himself to) - he gave a speech to hundreds of cheering service personnel. Among the words of wisdom he spoke were these:
I doubt that Bush realizes how apt that quote is. The term "thug" comes from an East Indian group of religious fanatics and assassins who existed for centuries and eventually opposed the British in their occupation of India during the 19th century. The Brits were largely successful against the Thugees, over the long haul, but of course eventually had to give up control of India. The Indians - even those who were not thugs, really didn't want them there.
Whenever I hear anyone talk about us "bringing" democracy to the Iraqis I remember the words attributed to Ghandi when questioned about the good government the British had brought them; he said, "Who would not rather have their own bad government, than the "good" government imposed by someone else?"
Indeed.
"The United States of America will not be intimidated by a bunch of thugs."
I doubt that Bush realizes how apt that quote is. The term "thug" comes from an East Indian group of religious fanatics and assassins who existed for centuries and eventually opposed the British in their occupation of India during the 19th century. The Brits were largely successful against the Thugees, over the long haul, but of course eventually had to give up control of India. The Indians - even those who were not thugs, really didn't want them there.
Whenever I hear anyone talk about us "bringing" democracy to the Iraqis I remember the words attributed to Ghandi when questioned about the good government the British had brought them; he said, "Who would not rather have their own bad government, than the "good" government imposed by someone else?"
Indeed.
Sunday, November 23, 2003
Dem Deep Pockets
I am currently reading George Soros's new book, _The Bubble of American Supremacy: Corrrecting the Misuse of American Power. Given the amount of criticism he has received for recently making big money donations to liberal groups such as MoveON.org, it is well to consider how seldom big money interests ever contribute to our side of the isle. In this vein, consider this comparison of Soros to that patron of right wing causes, the Rev. Moon.
Friday, November 21, 2003
Bush vs Our Peace of Mind
The government is warning of increased danger to U. S. citizens from terrorists:
OK, maybe I'm missing something, but hasn't Bush been insisting all along that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were making us "safer"? If all it's doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, is that a good idea? If that is not what is happening, then what is?
In a really silly take on this situation:
Well, duh! How much "vigilance" and of what kind would have helped any of us prevent 9/11? We know that vigilant FBI agents and others raised a red flag about people training to "steer" aircraft but not training to either take off or land. Those warnings were deep-sixed and totally ignored. If the vigilance of people who can actually make a difference makes no difference, what the hell can the rest of us do?
Of course, after this morning, we will all know to avoid rockets mounted on donkey carts. Beyond that, what the hell are we supposed to do?
The government warned Friday of an increased risk of terrorist attacks on Americans at home and overseas and stressed concerns al-Qaida could try to hijack cargo jets and crash them into targets.
Terrorist bombings overseas and an increased volume of threats against U.S. interests at home and in foreign countries led the Homeland Security Department and FBI to issue the public warning and an advisory to law enforcement agencies, government officials and private-sector security personnel.
Of particular concern is "al-Qaida's continued interest in aviation, including using cargo jets" to attack infrastructure such as bridges or dams "as well as targeting liquid natural gas, chemical and other hazardous materials facilities," the department said in a statement.
OK, maybe I'm missing something, but hasn't Bush been insisting all along that attacking Afghanistan and Iraq were making us "safer"? If all it's doing is stirring up a hornet's nest, is that a good idea? If that is not what is happening, then what is?
In a really silly take on this situation:
Also Friday, the State Department issued a "worldwide caution" for Americans traveling abroad, urging that they "maintain a high level of vigilance" for possible terrorist attacks.
"We are seeing increasing indications that al-Qaida is preparing to strike U.S. interests abroad," the State Department said.
Neither threat warning included any specific times, locations or methods for a potential attack.
Well, duh! How much "vigilance" and of what kind would have helped any of us prevent 9/11? We know that vigilant FBI agents and others raised a red flag about people training to "steer" aircraft but not training to either take off or land. Those warnings were deep-sixed and totally ignored. If the vigilance of people who can actually make a difference makes no difference, what the hell can the rest of us do?
Of course, after this morning, we will all know to avoid rockets mounted on donkey carts. Beyond that, what the hell are we supposed to do?
Thursday, November 20, 2003
Chomsky vs Bushco
I am constantly surprised at the strength of the negative feelings people who know nothing about him have about Noam Chomsky. He is widely viewed as a conspiracy theorist, an extremist, a nut, a nothing that can be ignored because he is so widely discredited. The problem is that he is intelligent, honest, direct, and persuasive. I don't know anyone who has actually read him who continues to feel that he is some kind of flake.
The main problem for anyone who reads Chomsky is that his basic assumptions are so different from most Americans that it is a major shock to the reader's belief system. That is painful and distressing. But his presentation, both written and spoken, is quiet, direct, factual, faintly ironic and so inexorable that it is hard to avoid the conclusion he only suggests.
Like journalist legend I. F. Stone, Chomsky has, decade after decade, been true to his basic world view - and by following that view has almost single handedly created a movement. Of course, since he's an anarchist that movement has no organization, but I sense he prefers it that way. He doesn't much like anyone pulling strings or setting arbitrary boundaries. He seems to want us, as the 60's slogan said, to "question authority". Beyond that, what we do with any resulting insight should be up to us. He thus expresses more faith in human nature and democratic processes than our actual government does.
For me, Chomsky's basic positions are mostly incontrovertible. He believes that money confers a kind of power that the average person doesn't quite understand. Wealthy persons use every power available to them to secure their own privileged positions, including corrupting the media to make the case that whatever profits the "ruling class" is a good thing and whatever costs them is bad. How can you fault this analysis? All you have to do is look. We honor and defer to the "ruling class" even while denying that there is one. This is the true proof of the success of the wealthy in securing their preferred position, safe from any real competition. America is a "classless society" in the same way that Putin is a "good man" and Sharon is a "man of peace." Emotional language substitutes for actual inconvenient facts.
For those who are interested, check out the excellent online biography _Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent_, or any of the numerous books and articles that he has produced over the last four decades trying to call attention to what is going on around us that we mostly ignore.
Part of what resonates with Chomsky enthusiasts is his ability to be outraged by actions that most of the public has either become numb to or simply fail to perceive. While his ideas are basic, obvious and can be reduced to sound bites, that does a disservice to the complex and rigorous analysis he has performed on American media, government, education, and basic worldview. Reading Chomsky is very much like hearing the Firesign Theater's insistence that "everything you know is wrong." Bush loves to talk about "liberty." Well, there's nothing more liberating than realizing that we have been deceived and that much of what we assumed was true is a lie, crafted to keep us in line.
Check out his new book, _Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance_ for a vivid analysis of the current administration's policies and their implication.
However, his academic work in Liguistics has been as revolutionary in its own way as his political and social activism:
This is a truely remarkable intellect and it seems criminal that only a fringe of the daring left wing is willing to immerse itself in his sharp and unsettling worldview. Go ahead, take a fling - give him a try. Go back to the Viet Nam days and read _American Power and the New Mandarins_, the book that established the template for all his many political books to follow. It is simultaneously an uplifting and distressing experience. Then read his best selling book about 9/11. It is not the Faux News view.
The main problem for anyone who reads Chomsky is that his basic assumptions are so different from most Americans that it is a major shock to the reader's belief system. That is painful and distressing. But his presentation, both written and spoken, is quiet, direct, factual, faintly ironic and so inexorable that it is hard to avoid the conclusion he only suggests.
Like journalist legend I. F. Stone, Chomsky has, decade after decade, been true to his basic world view - and by following that view has almost single handedly created a movement. Of course, since he's an anarchist that movement has no organization, but I sense he prefers it that way. He doesn't much like anyone pulling strings or setting arbitrary boundaries. He seems to want us, as the 60's slogan said, to "question authority". Beyond that, what we do with any resulting insight should be up to us. He thus expresses more faith in human nature and democratic processes than our actual government does.
A word on his method. A self-avowed believer in "Cartesian common sense," the scientific method laid out by Descartes, Chomsky applies the following methodological rules - as described in David Cogswell's Chomsky for Beginners - in thinking logically towards reliable conclusions: "Accept only clear and distinct ideas. Break each problem into as many parts as necessary to solve it. Work from the simple to the complex. Always check for mistakes." His analytic technique has also been described as "the classic academician's accumulation of massive documentation, relying both on standard references and on sources that are frequently ignored by mainstream commentators and historians," with the method flavoured by the use of irony.
For me, Chomsky's basic positions are mostly incontrovertible. He believes that money confers a kind of power that the average person doesn't quite understand. Wealthy persons use every power available to them to secure their own privileged positions, including corrupting the media to make the case that whatever profits the "ruling class" is a good thing and whatever costs them is bad. How can you fault this analysis? All you have to do is look. We honor and defer to the "ruling class" even while denying that there is one. This is the true proof of the success of the wealthy in securing their preferred position, safe from any real competition. America is a "classless society" in the same way that Putin is a "good man" and Sharon is a "man of peace." Emotional language substitutes for actual inconvenient facts.
For those who are interested, check out the excellent online biography _Noam Chomsky: A Life of Dissent_, or any of the numerous books and articles that he has produced over the last four decades trying to call attention to what is going on around us that we mostly ignore.
Part of what resonates with Chomsky enthusiasts is his ability to be outraged by actions that most of the public has either become numb to or simply fail to perceive. While his ideas are basic, obvious and can be reduced to sound bites, that does a disservice to the complex and rigorous analysis he has performed on American media, government, education, and basic worldview. Reading Chomsky is very much like hearing the Firesign Theater's insistence that "everything you know is wrong." Bush loves to talk about "liberty." Well, there's nothing more liberating than realizing that we have been deceived and that much of what we assumed was true is a lie, crafted to keep us in line.
Check out his new book, _Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance_ for a vivid analysis of the current administration's policies and their implication.
However, his academic work in Liguistics has been as revolutionary in its own way as his political and social activism:
Chomsky is reported, in recent surveys, to be the most cited of all living authors, ranking in fact with Marx, Shakespeare and the Bible as one of the ten most quoted sources in the humanities. Raising the question "Why is Chomsky important?" Neil Smith, a linguistic theorist and author of an insightful and accessible book on his ideas and ideals, provides the following answer:
He has shown that there is really one human language: that the immense complexity of the innumerable languages we hear around us must be variations on a single theme. He has revolutionized linguistics, and in so doing has set a cat among the philosophical pigeons. He has resurrected the theory of innate ideas, demonstrating that a substantial part of our knowledge is genetically determined; he has reinstated rationalist ideas that go back centuries, but which had fallen into disrepute; and he has provided evidence that 'unconscious knowledge' is what underlies our ability to speak and understand. He has overturned the dominant school of behaviourism in psychology, and has returned the mind to its position of pre-eminence in the study of humankind. In short, Chomsky has changed the way we think of ourselves... And he has done this while devoting a great deal of his time to political and social analysis and activism...
This is a truely remarkable intellect and it seems criminal that only a fringe of the daring left wing is willing to immerse itself in his sharp and unsettling worldview. Go ahead, take a fling - give him a try. Go back to the Viet Nam days and read _American Power and the New Mandarins_, the book that established the template for all his many political books to follow. It is simultaneously an uplifting and distressing experience. Then read his best selling book about 9/11. It is not the Faux News view.
Bullshit American Media Style
Forget Osama and Saddam, CNN is spending expensive air time lovingly focused on a car driving along a street in Las Vegas that supposidly carries accused child molester Michael Jackson. At least with O.J. there was surprise and uncertainty about what he intended in that freeway ride in the white Bronco. But there is no mystery here and nothing interesting to say about this sad walking freak show.
Enough. Enough. Enough.
Enough. Enough. Enough.
A New Low For Tautology
Tony Blair, who unaccountably continues to be thought of as an articulate and intelligent man, had this to say about the cause of today's bombings in Istanbul:
Well DUH! If I blow up a building then of course I am responsible for the destruction, but that doesn't really explain why I did it - what I want to prove or change or cause as a result of such a terrible action. Both Bush and Blair talk about "the" terrorists as if they were talking about "the"elderly, or "the" Republican Party, but it makes no sense. There simply are no "terrorists" in the same sense that there are "Baptists", for example. Terroism is a tactic, a strategy, an approach to political change, not a theory or set of beliefs. It is a means to an end. What we have NEVER been given by these nitwits is what they think the "end" or objective of such terroist activity is.
We are, instead, treated to baby talk about "evil men" who "hate our freedoms" and our response, as Blair said today in a pitiful attempt at Churchillian rhetoric:
Great, so we are no nearer understanding what is going on but we are assured that our "leaders" will continue to do what they have done before which has led to this sad place.
These guys are a disgrace; miserable failures both.
"What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey is not the president of the United States, is not the alliance between America and Britain," he said. "What is responsible for that terrorist attack is terrorism, are the terrorists."
Well DUH! If I blow up a building then of course I am responsible for the destruction, but that doesn't really explain why I did it - what I want to prove or change or cause as a result of such a terrible action. Both Bush and Blair talk about "the" terrorists as if they were talking about "the"elderly, or "the" Republican Party, but it makes no sense. There simply are no "terrorists" in the same sense that there are "Baptists", for example. Terroism is a tactic, a strategy, an approach to political change, not a theory or set of beliefs. It is a means to an end. What we have NEVER been given by these nitwits is what they think the "end" or objective of such terroist activity is.
We are, instead, treated to baby talk about "evil men" who "hate our freedoms" and our response, as Blair said today in a pitiful attempt at Churchillian rhetoric:
"I can assure you of one thing: that when something like this happens today, our response is not to flinch or give way or concede one inch."
Great, so we are no nearer understanding what is going on but we are assured that our "leaders" will continue to do what they have done before which has led to this sad place.
These guys are a disgrace; miserable failures both.
What We Need Is A Little Policy Judo
Think about this for a minute:
The sad irony is that there is much truth in this observation. Forbidding something - especially something natural that people can't do much about - like learning, or not believing in the received religion, being gay rather than straight, or liberal rather than conservative - will just focus attention on the prohibition and cause those who gravitate towards what is outlawed to redouble their efforts to get around the restriction.
So go ahead idiots, pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and see how you like the resulting social upheaval.
Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote learning, why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition one did, why, in five years we would have the smartest [nation] of people on earth.”
- Will Rogers
The sad irony is that there is much truth in this observation. Forbidding something - especially something natural that people can't do much about - like learning, or not believing in the received religion, being gay rather than straight, or liberal rather than conservative - will just focus attention on the prohibition and cause those who gravitate towards what is outlawed to redouble their efforts to get around the restriction.
So go ahead idiots, pass a constitutional amendment against gay marriage, and see how you like the resulting social upheaval.
Arnold Adopts the Bush Economic Plan
California's new governor wants to address the state's fiscal deficit by borrowing more money! Wow, what an innovative approach to public finance, just like Bush - support government policies by increased spending supported by increased borrowing.
Do you suppose anyone would have voted for him if he had told California voters that what he planned to do was to address their debt problem by adding to it?
Do you suppose anyone would have voted for him if he had told California voters that what he planned to do was to address their debt problem by adding to it?
Bush vs the English Language
In honor of his State Visit to England, the Mirror has a feature article about Dubyah's attempts at speech, including the following classics:
So, I have to ask. Are we gonna get fooled again? What does Karl Rove have up his sleeve this time? I mean, for someone who obivously has this much trouble with simple thought processes to be elected president of the most powerful country on earth is pretty clear testimony to the fact that whoever is in charge it ain't him.
FIRST, let me make it very clear, poor people aren't necessarily killers. Just because you happen to be not rich doesn't mean you're willing to kill.
Washington, May 19, 2003
. . .
SECURITY is the essential roadblock to achieving the road map to peace.
On the Middle East, Washington, July 25, 2003
. . .
ONE year ago today, the time for excuse-making has come to an end.
Washington, January 8, 2002
YOU know, it'll take time to restore chaos and order - order out of chaos. But we will.
Washington, April 13, 2002
THE law I sign today directs new funds and new focus to the task of collecting vital intelligence on terrorist threats and on weapons of mass production.
On WMDs, Washington, November 27, 2002
THERE'S an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on... shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.
Tennessee, September 17, 2002
. . .
THERE'S only one person who hugs the mothers and the widows, the wives and the kids upon the death of their loved one. Others hug, but having committed the troops, I've got an additional responsibility to hug and that's me and I know what it's like.
Washington, December 11, 2002
So, I have to ask. Are we gonna get fooled again? What does Karl Rove have up his sleeve this time? I mean, for someone who obivously has this much trouble with simple thought processes to be elected president of the most powerful country on earth is pretty clear testimony to the fact that whoever is in charge it ain't him.
Wednesday, November 19, 2003
Shamelss Plug
Heavily invested in a Southern music evening I am into the Oxford American magazine's Southern Music CD # 6. For those of you who haven't experienced this magazine and its annual CD, PLEASE check it out. This is some really good stuff. Ignoring the mag for the moment and looking just at the CD, this alone is probably worth the price of admission because it includes such a great variety of artists that most of us wouldn't ever experience otherwise - the Del McCoury Band, the Gourds, My Morning Jacket, and Swamp Dog, to name just a few worthy of paying attention to.
Great stuff.
Great stuff.
Emmylou Harris, Steve Earle, and John Prine vs Bush and Company
I'm sitting here in Manchester, CT in the rain and cold, listening to a Steve Earle CD and wondering what the hell it all means - when a group of "country" singers makes more sense and expresses more humanity than the "president" of our country. SOB was in the audience almost exactly a year ago at the Birchmere Club in Alexandria, VA when Emmylou Harris was presented with the Patrick J. Leahy Humanitarian Award for her tireless, unpaid work trying to outlaw land mines. Appearing with her on the program were a number of notable figures in the music business, including Guy Clarke, John Prine and Steve Earle. Prine won the heart's of the audience when he performed "Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore" (a song he said he really didn't think he would have a reason to sing again after Viet Nam - as if), and Steve Earle, who is, by his own admission, something of a Marxist, performed "Jerusalem" and "Copperhead Road" - the first an honest take on the middle east situation and the second an honest take on the BS "war on drugs."
This kind of thing makes me proud to be a Southerner and in some sense associated with "country" music. Despite the stereotyping, there are those in the genre who have as much sophistication and intelligence as anyone. The country would really profit from some more of that outspoken Dixie Chicks kind of honesty, rather than the wrap me in the flag and call me servile bathos that so frequently comes out of Nashville.
Right on.
This kind of thing makes me proud to be a Southerner and in some sense associated with "country" music. Despite the stereotyping, there are those in the genre who have as much sophistication and intelligence as anyone. The country would really profit from some more of that outspoken Dixie Chicks kind of honesty, rather than the wrap me in the flag and call me servile bathos that so frequently comes out of Nashville.
Right on.
Bushco vs Iraqi Buildings
Billmon has a great post about the U.S. use of bombing as a response to guerrilla attacks:
More Bushco PR stuff, folks. It seems to be everywhere.
I don't know what's more Orwellian -- the idea of "fighting" buildings and patches of ground, or the linguistic transformation of civilian dwellings into guerrilla "safe houses." Hell, they could claim they're blowing up crack houses in Iraq, and your average American couch potato would just wave his beer at the TV and belch out his approval.
. . .
Maybe all this Sturm und Drang really is just a giant exercise in blowing off military steam. But I'm increasingly inclined to think the primary motive is political, not military. And the primary target appears to be the Republican base back home, not guerrilla bases in Iraq. I think this may just be the administration's way of telling the voters: We feel your genocidal rage.
As always, the Mighty Wurlitzer is happy to follow the sheet music. A quick Google search finds lots of headlines like these:
US launches new offensive in Iraq
US Jets Bomb Guerrilla Sites
US Flexes Its Muscles in Iraq's North
US hits back in house assaults in Iraq
US forces get tough in Tikrit
More Bushco PR stuff, folks. It seems to be everywhere.
More Bush Inspired PR
And speaking of ad campaigns, it seems the Bush administration's latest lame plan for making things appear to be better than they are is to set up TV station in Iraq with the aim of presenting the U.S. audience with the "real" story of what is going on:
Unlike the AARP ad campaign that will cost it millions, this scheme will be paid for with our tax dollars - whether we agree with the PR rationale or not. Proving yet again that free speech just ain't as "free" as it used to be.
Congress is so suspicious of an official government broadcast network being subverted for political and propaganda purposes that it refuses to allow Voice of America radio and TV to broadcast to the United States.
So Congress might want to start asking some hard, skeptical questions about the Bush administration's plans to start a 24-hour satellite TV channel in Baghdad to broadcast government-approved stories back to the United States so Americans will get the "real" story on Iraq.
The Bush administration believes independent TV networks concentrate too much on the escalating attacks on American soldiers, riots, demonstrations and the so far fruitless hunt for Saddam Hussein instead of the successes of the occupation. The head of the project was a Bush media adviser during the Florida recount.
Unlike the AARP ad campaign that will cost it millions, this scheme will be paid for with our tax dollars - whether we agree with the PR rationale or not. Proving yet again that free speech just ain't as "free" as it used to be.
The AARP Shows Its True Colors
The American Association of Retired Persons, the venerable AARP that loves to present itself as the best friend of the aging crowd, has now demonstrated that its true motive is profit over people. Yesterday it endorsed the final version of the Republican's Medicare prescription drug bill. Democrats are furious, not just because it gives the Republicans an inroad into what has been traditional Democrat issue-territory, but because the bill is a Trojan horse that will force many on medicare into HMOs. The bill continues the current administration's efforts to privatize as much of government work as they can.
What is really disgusting here is that the AARP is planning a seven million dollar ad campaign in support of the bill. The AARP is a not for profit organization. No such organization spends millions of dollars to support something that isn't REALLY important to them. All one has to do is look at the actual business end of AARP to realize how heavily invested they are in such money making schemes as Medicare supplement insurance and their own prescription drug service. This bill will force seniors to avail themselves of such services:
The ongoing dispute over this bill is shaping up to be a lively fight. Between this, gay marriage, and the bogus ten commandment crusade, Republicans may just be able to hog the public debate and keep attention focused away from Iraq, tax swindles, corporate corruption, and the other items on the long list of serious matters that should really be the focus of the upcoming elections. And they will strive to do this, like there buddies at the AARP, with expensive ad campaigns.
What is really disgusting here is that the AARP is planning a seven million dollar ad campaign in support of the bill. The AARP is a not for profit organization. No such organization spends millions of dollars to support something that isn't REALLY important to them. All one has to do is look at the actual business end of AARP to realize how heavily invested they are in such money making schemes as Medicare supplement insurance and their own prescription drug service. This bill will force seniors to avail themselves of such services:
The most controversial portion of the measure would establish a six-year program of direct competition beginning in 2010 between traditional Medicare and the private plans. The program would be limited to six metropolitan regions.
Supporters said direct competition was necessary to reduce the future growth of the program. Critics countered that as younger and healthier seniors move toward managed care, older, sicker beneficiaries would face ever-rising premium costs in traditional Medicare coverage.
The ongoing dispute over this bill is shaping up to be a lively fight. Between this, gay marriage, and the bogus ten commandment crusade, Republicans may just be able to hog the public debate and keep attention focused away from Iraq, tax swindles, corporate corruption, and the other items on the long list of serious matters that should really be the focus of the upcoming elections. And they will strive to do this, like there buddies at the AARP, with expensive ad campaigns.
Happy Birthday Dr. Dean
Mrs. SOB worked the Dean birthday bash fundraiser at the National Museum of Women in the Arts, Monday 11-17-03. She said that something seemed really wrong - the candidate, his family, and his campaign staff - seemed to be really "nice" people. This, in the world of American politics, just ain't normal.
Is that a good thing - or a bad thing?
Is that a good thing - or a bad thing?
Winning Hearts and Minds: Continued
We always seem to learn the wrong lessons. Not knowing how else to respond to instability in Iraq, our occupying forces take to heavy handed oppression:
It may not be Viet Nam, but it sure is shaping up to be a quagmire. Welcome to Quicksand City.
TIKRIT, Iraq - In a tactic reminiscent of Israeli crackdowns in the West Bank and Gaza, the U.S. military has begun destroying the homes of suspected guerrilla fighters in Iraq's Sunni Triangle, evacuating women and children, then leveling their houses with heavy weaponry.
At least 15 homes have been destroyed in Tikrit as part of what has been dubbed Operation Ivy Cyclone Two. Among them were four houses allegedly belonging to suspects in the Nov. 7 downing of a Black Hawk helicopter that killed six Americans. Those houses were leveled Sunday by tanks and Apache helicopters.
Family members at one of the houses, in the village of al Haweda, said they were given five minutes to evacuate before soldiers opened fire.
"This is something Sharon would do," said farmer Jamel Shahab, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon. "What's happening in Iraq is just like Palestine."
It may not be Viet Nam, but it sure is shaping up to be a quagmire. Welcome to Quicksand City.
Tuesday, November 18, 2003
A Non-Bush Moment
I'm sitting here having a difficult time getting involved in any of the anti-Bush rant I would normally enjoy so much becuase I'm listening to Warren Zevon's last album, "The Wind." Zevon, who died some months ago, spent the last months of his life in concentrated effort producing this CD, probably as good as anything he ever did in a very distinguished career. Guest support from Emmylou Harris, Tom Petty, Don Henley, Bruce Springsteen, Jackson Brown, Billy Bob Thornton, T-Bone Burnett, John Waite, Dwight Yoakam, and Ry Cooder is a pretty good indication of the respect Zevon commanded in the music industry (this is an echo of his 1976 album that also included supporting performances from all the luminaries of the day).
Think about it - he knew he was dying and still spent 12 hours plus every day in a studio putting together one more album. I'm still trying to get over "Hindu Love Gods" - the CD he produced with REM minus Michael Stipe, more than a decade ago. Truely amazing stuff. Best if one is stoned, but interesting in any state.
We have lost a major talent, but his focus and dedication to what he did best should be an inspiration to all of us - dead skunk or no.
So, do you think Dubyah really understands that he has become the current standin for the tragicomic werewolf of London? There sure are lots of Brits out there right now sharpening those stakes (oops, that's for vampires). This would really be a great time to be in London!
Think about it - he knew he was dying and still spent 12 hours plus every day in a studio putting together one more album. I'm still trying to get over "Hindu Love Gods" - the CD he produced with REM minus Michael Stipe, more than a decade ago. Truely amazing stuff. Best if one is stoned, but interesting in any state.
We have lost a major talent, but his focus and dedication to what he did best should be an inspiration to all of us - dead skunk or no.
So, do you think Dubyah really understands that he has become the current standin for the tragicomic werewolf of London? There sure are lots of Brits out there right now sharpening those stakes (oops, that's for vampires). This would really be a great time to be in London!
Why Does Bush Hate American Soldiers?
The US President yesterday revealed he will be meeting relatives of British soldiers killed during the war, to tell them their loved ones died for a "noble cause" and "did not die in vain".
It's truely noble of him to honor the families of British war dead, but unless I've missed something, Bush has not been willing to visit with the families of any American soldiers killed in his war - nor has he visited the wounded or attented a single veteran's funeral. Yet this is the drama queen who proclaimed that he alone had the job of comforting the families of those lost in war. As restated by Ari Fleischer,
Uh, do you remember him hugging all those widows? I sure don't. Do you remember him acknowledging any of the deaths in Iraq except in an abstract and indirect way? I don't. Do you remember him taking time out of his busy fund raising schedule to actually sit with and comfort a wounded vet? I don't.
Well, this situation in London may backfire badly. It seems he wants to screen the families to make sure that none of them have a negative view of him and his war. And many of them do:
With any luck this will just be a preview of what his own citizens will want to tell him. He's a miserable failure and many had to die to make that clear to the world. He needs to pay
It's truely noble of him to honor the families of British war dead, but unless I've missed something, Bush has not been willing to visit with the families of any American soldiers killed in his war - nor has he visited the wounded or attented a single veteran's funeral. Yet this is the drama queen who proclaimed that he alone had the job of comforting the families of those lost in war. As restated by Ari Fleischer,
This President does not engage in any discussion of war lightly. I want to remind you, he's the person who's had, because of the attack on our country on September 11th, the burden and the duty to hug the widows and the children of those who have lost their lives already in combat. Combat is the last thing this President wants to engage in.
Uh, do you remember him hugging all those widows? I sure don't. Do you remember him acknowledging any of the deaths in Iraq except in an abstract and indirect way? I don't. Do you remember him taking time out of his busy fund raising schedule to actually sit with and comfort a wounded vet? I don't.
Well, this situation in London may backfire badly. It seems he wants to screen the families to make sure that none of them have a negative view of him and his war. And many of them do:
Bush's meetings with families of soldiers killed in Iraq have been billed as one of the centrepieces of his state visit to wartime ally Britain this week.
But as Prime Minister Tony Blair has already learned, the president is likely to find them a difficult audience.
Over the past months, parents and widows of slain soldiers have emerged as some of the war's most potent critics, many trying to balance pride in their husbands' and sons' sacrifice with anger over what they see as false justifications for war.
With any luck this will just be a preview of what his own citizens will want to tell him. He's a miserable failure and many had to die to make that clear to the world. He needs to pay
Bush Family Friends: The Criminally Insane, Major Theives, and Terrorists
John Hinckley, the failed assassin of Ronald Reagan, is requesting the right to have unsupervised visits with his family. Hinckley, who has been confined to St Elizabeth's hospital since being judged not guilty by reason of insanity of trying to kill the president, thinks he is ready to be allowed his freedom - and his doctors agree.
As this story plays out I think it is important to remember a part of this story that the Bush family has been trying hard to bury - that the Bushes and the Hinckleys (both Texas families in the oil business) had long known each other. Worse, on the same day that John Hinckley shot Reagan his brother was scheduled to have dinner with Dubyah's brother Neil (does this guy have a talent for sleeze or what?). In other words, a family friend of the Vice President attempts to kill the President, is found "not guilty" after no real investigation is conducted (at the insistence of Vice President Bush), and then under the Presidency of Bush's vacuous son is allowed to resume a normal life as if he hadn't tried to assassinate a president. Am I the only one who thinks that something really stinks in this situation? In fact, it seems that there is actually a genuine blood relation between the Hinckleys and the Bushs.
Another set of associations that is really too complex to present here are the connections between the Bush family and the many unsavory players in the Savings and Loan collapse that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars to pay for the theft that resulted from Reagen inspired deregulation of the banking industry.
But the worst "coincidence" for the Bush family in this modern world is that they have long been business partners with the bin Laden family. OK, I've read and enjoyed a lot of Charles Dickens, despite the unlikely coincidences that advance and resolve his plots, but for goodness sake, are we to believe that these connections with the Bush family are just accidental? If you really believe that I have a great deal to talk to you about.
As this story plays out I think it is important to remember a part of this story that the Bush family has been trying hard to bury - that the Bushes and the Hinckleys (both Texas families in the oil business) had long known each other. Worse, on the same day that John Hinckley shot Reagan his brother was scheduled to have dinner with Dubyah's brother Neil (does this guy have a talent for sleeze or what?). In other words, a family friend of the Vice President attempts to kill the President, is found "not guilty" after no real investigation is conducted (at the insistence of Vice President Bush), and then under the Presidency of Bush's vacuous son is allowed to resume a normal life as if he hadn't tried to assassinate a president. Am I the only one who thinks that something really stinks in this situation? In fact, it seems that there is actually a genuine blood relation between the Hinckleys and the Bushs.
Another set of associations that is really too complex to present here are the connections between the Bush family and the many unsavory players in the Savings and Loan collapse that cost American taxpayers billions of dollars to pay for the theft that resulted from Reagen inspired deregulation of the banking industry.
But the worst "coincidence" for the Bush family in this modern world is that they have long been business partners with the bin Laden family. OK, I've read and enjoyed a lot of Charles Dickens, despite the unlikely coincidences that advance and resolve his plots, but for goodness sake, are we to believe that these connections with the Bush family are just accidental? If you really believe that I have a great deal to talk to you about.
Monday, November 17, 2003
Larry of Araby
After a hard day at work I am presented with a terrible choice - I can either blog or watch David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" on The Movie Channel. There is probably not a more relevant film to our present situation in Iraq - and with Dubyah's upcoming visit to London it seems especially apt. If only someone had bothered to teach this nitwit some history we might be spared the present angst.
I first saw this film as an impoverished student at Memphis State University in 1963 - a mere four decades ago. It was wonderfully impressive in many ways. Since then I have read Lawrence's autobiography, _Seven Pillars of Wisdom_, several times, as well as a number of other biographies of this strange man. The tragedy of his life continues to plague the region of the world that he loved. Lawrence managed to screw it up despite knowing the history, the religion, the language, the psychology, and the ambitions of the Arab peoples. Dubyah doesn't know any of this, yet believes that his faith will see him through. More's the pity, since others - mostly poor blue collar volunteers - will pay the price for his narrow stupidity and lack of interest in anything he doesn't already know.
I'm opting for the film. I've had enough of Bush for the moment.
I first saw this film as an impoverished student at Memphis State University in 1963 - a mere four decades ago. It was wonderfully impressive in many ways. Since then I have read Lawrence's autobiography, _Seven Pillars of Wisdom_, several times, as well as a number of other biographies of this strange man. The tragedy of his life continues to plague the region of the world that he loved. Lawrence managed to screw it up despite knowing the history, the religion, the language, the psychology, and the ambitions of the Arab peoples. Dubyah doesn't know any of this, yet believes that his faith will see him through. More's the pity, since others - mostly poor blue collar volunteers - will pay the price for his narrow stupidity and lack of interest in anything he doesn't already know.
I'm opting for the film. I've had enough of Bush for the moment.
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Bush vs All Of Us
George W. Bush, that miserable failure of a cheif executive, has claimed powers for himself that go beyond what any other president has had - and certainly beyond what is actually granted by law:
No American president should have the absolute power to imprison people at will, even when the nation is at war.
That's the unfettered power President George W. Bush has claimed for himself in the war on terrorism. On his authority alone -- unchecked by courts or international convention -- 660 people from 42 nations captured in the Afghanistan war have been locked in a U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for two years. Two others -- American citizens -- have been held in military brigs almost as long, without criminal charges or access to family, lawyers or court.
Bush has labeled them "enemy combatants." With those two words, the president says he can lawfully move anyone he chooses beyond the reach of any legal authority other than his own.
Impeach the Shrub
I was reviewing some postings from early this year and ran across one that I think deserves reposting:
Yeah, we really should consider impeaching the imposter. Clinton was impeached for nothing even close to "high crimes and misdemeanors" while the miserable failure carries on in style.
Is America a great country, or what?
According to the constitution, all treaties, once ratified, shall be considered part of the supreme law of the land. In other words, ratified treaties become an extending of the constitution itself. The UN Charter, which we not only ratified but largely authored, expressly forbids a pre-emptive attack of one country against another. It endorses the use of force in only two situations: (1) self defense in the face of immediate attack, and (2) a UN sanctioned action in response to a generally perceived threat.
The US attack on Iraq satisfies neither of these restrictions and is therefore illegal under the constitution. The war on Iraq was fundamentally unconstitutional and thus a violation of Bush's oath of office. As such it was an impeachable offence, and yet this clown is being praised for it. This is how far we have sunk in the mire of self-serving hypocrisy.
Yeah, we really should consider impeaching the imposter. Clinton was impeached for nothing even close to "high crimes and misdemeanors" while the miserable failure carries on in style.
Is America a great country, or what?
Chick Flicks vs Bush
"Love Actually", the new British "I laughed, I cried" film from the makers of "Four Weddings and a Funeral", has a great bit in which the British Prime Minister (played by Hugh Grant) stands up to the smirking President of the United States (played, ever so well, by Billy Bob Thornton). OK, it's fantasy, but fantasy that huge numbers of people - even many in the U. S. - long to see.
See it.
See it.
Iraqi Opinions
Check out this exellent post on Hell for Halliburton:
But things are really getting better - right?
What the Average, Educated Iraqi thinks - Is Very Bad News for American Soldiers in IRAQ
But things are really getting better - right?
Bush the Cartoon
Our miserable failure of a president is getting ready for a potentially ill fated visit to jolly old England. Tens of thousands of Brits want to tell him to bugger off, but the official folk are working hard to prevent any chance of our first imbecile actually being confronted by those who disagree with him. But the average person doesn't see things from the official point of view:
In response to what is likely to be a lively anit-bush reception being planned by numerous groups in London, the conservative press is calling for civility and understanding:
The problem, of course, is that Bush's "merits" are very difficult for the average sane person to apprehend, while the perception of him as a cartoon figure is encouraged by his own simplistic, two-dimensional view of the world. As he once famously said, "I don't do nuance." Alas, the real universe in which we live is infinitely nuanced and more complex than even the brightest person could comprehend. To pretend that it is simpler and can be dealt with in sound bites is nonsense and dangerously simple minded for someone with the president's responsibilities. To claim that Sharon is a "man of peace" or that he has looked into Putin's soul and he is a "good man" or that the 9/11 terrorists simply "hate our freedom" is to make a characature of a complex situation. Bush is viewed as a cartoon because that is how he talks about the world - a few simple images in black and white - no shading, little detail - just broad strokes and a bumper sticker style caption.
People criticized Bill Clinton for talking too long and in too much detail about policy issues but at least he understood what he was talking about - as does AL Gore, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Carol Mosley Braun, General Wesely Clark, and Joe Lieberaman. Hell, even Al Sharpton could nuance Dubyah's ass off any stage in the country.
The Democrats real problem is that they have an embarrassment of riches. They have to narrow down the field soon just for the sake of focus. And they have to hope that Bush the younger proves himself to be as clumsy and out of touch as his old man when re-election time comes around. What he has that his father didn't is a political manipulator as cynical and savvy as Karl Rove. THAT is the danger the Dems face. They aren't really running against Shrub - they're running against the revolutionary , win-at-all-costs, Republican machine, and, as Paul Krugman pointed out, this group is truely "revolutionary" and intends to fundamentally change the Amreican political process. If Dems can't wake folks up to that WE ARE S O L!
Indeed, one recent opinion survey of 7,500 Europeans, conducted on behalf of the European Commission in Brussels, ranked the American leader No. 2, along with Kim Jong Il of North Korea, as a threat to world peace. (Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of Israel ranked No. 1.)
Even in Britain, by far Washington's staunchest ally in the Iraq war, thousands of people say they will take to the streets to protest President Bush's state visit here. Mr. Bush and his wife, Laura, will stay at Buckingham Palace as guests of Queen Elizabeth II.
Partly, hostility by Britons, unlike that of some other Europeans, is colored with a profound resentment that, having sent troops to fight and die in Iraq and having provided unfailing political cover and support, Prime Minister Tony Blair seems to reap so few American rewards for tying his political fortunes to an unpopular alliance with Mr. Bush.
In response to what is likely to be a lively anit-bush reception being planned by numerous groups in London, the conservative press is calling for civility and understanding:
"The president is entitled to a fairer hearing than he has received and to be treated as a politician on his merits rather than be caricatured as a cartoon figure," said an editorial in The Times of London, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
The problem, of course, is that Bush's "merits" are very difficult for the average sane person to apprehend, while the perception of him as a cartoon figure is encouraged by his own simplistic, two-dimensional view of the world. As he once famously said, "I don't do nuance." Alas, the real universe in which we live is infinitely nuanced and more complex than even the brightest person could comprehend. To pretend that it is simpler and can be dealt with in sound bites is nonsense and dangerously simple minded for someone with the president's responsibilities. To claim that Sharon is a "man of peace" or that he has looked into Putin's soul and he is a "good man" or that the 9/11 terrorists simply "hate our freedom" is to make a characature of a complex situation. Bush is viewed as a cartoon because that is how he talks about the world - a few simple images in black and white - no shading, little detail - just broad strokes and a bumper sticker style caption.
People criticized Bill Clinton for talking too long and in too much detail about policy issues but at least he understood what he was talking about - as does AL Gore, Howard Dean, Dick Gephardt, John Kerry, Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, Carol Mosley Braun, General Wesely Clark, and Joe Lieberaman. Hell, even Al Sharpton could nuance Dubyah's ass off any stage in the country.
The Democrats real problem is that they have an embarrassment of riches. They have to narrow down the field soon just for the sake of focus. And they have to hope that Bush the younger proves himself to be as clumsy and out of touch as his old man when re-election time comes around. What he has that his father didn't is a political manipulator as cynical and savvy as Karl Rove. THAT is the danger the Dems face. They aren't really running against Shrub - they're running against the revolutionary , win-at-all-costs, Republican machine, and, as Paul Krugman pointed out, this group is truely "revolutionary" and intends to fundamentally change the Amreican political process. If Dems can't wake folks up to that WE ARE S O L!
Selling hypocrisy
The print and electronic media this morning are full of Bush administration double-speak. On Fox News Sunday, Paul Bremer, the incompetent civilian puppet master for the Iraq occupation, indicated what he sees as America's role in Iraq's future:
What a good idea. You remember the "Bill of Rights?" Right? We have one of those. It is supposed to protect us from unwarranted searches and seizures, guarantee a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, assure us the right to freedom of speech and assembly. Yet under this administration U.S. citizens have been arrested and detained with no charge, not allowed access to an attorney, and kept in secret detention for reasons the government refuses to reveal. We have been warned by the president's spokesperson that we "have to watch what we say" and protestors have been denied the right to assemble, being either arrested or herded into "free speech zones" far removed from the object of protest. The Attorney General, in order to express his Christian faith more fully, has demanded an expansion of the application of the death penalty, and increased enforcement of laws that deny legally approved medical marijuana for terminal cancer patients. This will really help in the "war" on terrorism (nothing like stoned terminally ill patients to wreak terror on innocent civilians).
Bremer, oblivious to the obvious inconsistencies in his presentation, continues:
Isn't that funny? In the "Alice In Wonderland" world that is Bush-speak, our excuse for attacking Iraq was that it was such a terrible threat to its neighbors. Now that we have invaded, we have to stay because its neighbors are such a terrible threat to it.
Are you getting this?
The United States will help write an interim Iraqi constitution that embodies American values and will lead to the creation of a new government, America's chief postwar administrator in Iraq said Sunday.
"We will write into that constitution exactly the kinds of guarantees that were not in Saddam's constitution.," L. Paul Bremer told ABC's "This Week" from Baghdad, the Iraqi capital.
"We'll have a bill of rights. We'll recognize equality for all citizens. We'll recognize an independent judiciary. We'll talk about a federal government.
What a good idea. You remember the "Bill of Rights?" Right? We have one of those. It is supposed to protect us from unwarranted searches and seizures, guarantee a speedy trial by a jury of our peers, assure us the right to freedom of speech and assembly. Yet under this administration U.S. citizens have been arrested and detained with no charge, not allowed access to an attorney, and kept in secret detention for reasons the government refuses to reveal. We have been warned by the president's spokesperson that we "have to watch what we say" and protestors have been denied the right to assemble, being either arrested or herded into "free speech zones" far removed from the object of protest. The Attorney General, in order to express his Christian faith more fully, has demanded an expansion of the application of the death penalty, and increased enforcement of laws that deny legally approved medical marijuana for terminal cancer patients. This will really help in the "war" on terrorism (nothing like stoned terminally ill patients to wreak terror on innocent civilians).
Bremer, oblivious to the obvious inconsistencies in his presentation, continues:
Bremer said Americans will work with the Iraqi Governing Council in writing the interim constitution. There will also be a side agreement dealing with security and the presence of U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq, he said.
While the U.S.-led occupation will end, Bremer said the presence of coalition forces will not.
"Our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence," he said. "I'm sure the Iraqi government is going to want to have coalition forces here for its own security for some time to come."
. . .
That agreement, he said, "will provide for our continued presence in Iraq to help them stabilize their country and to help them stay at peace with their neighbors. They have some pretty rough neighbors, and they're going to need our assistance, I think, for some time."
Isn't that funny? In the "Alice In Wonderland" world that is Bush-speak, our excuse for attacking Iraq was that it was such a terrible threat to its neighbors. Now that we have invaded, we have to stay because its neighbors are such a terrible threat to it.
Are you getting this?
Friday, November 14, 2003
Asia Buys America - Literally
Billmon has a great post detailing the complexity of the U. S. economy's dependence on foreign, largely Asian, purchases of treasury notes in propping up the value of the dollar and allowing the maintenance of otherwise unnaturally low interest rates:
This is an excellent analysis and highlights how dependent our current economy is on foriegn support - and how dependent foreign countries are on supporting the U. S. economy, even as it engages in a longterm losing strategy.
And, as Billmon notes, the current administration's economic policies, which have drastically increased federal debt and made the functioning of government totally dependent on borrowed money, has made foreign investors Bush's biggest supporters:
We should particularly thank the Big Three -- the Bank of Japan, the People's Bank of China (mainland), and the Central Bank of China (Taiwan). Collectively, these three institutions have become America's sugar daddy, making it possible for the Fed to continue feeding the bond market on cheap credit.
By purchasing the excess dollar liabilities generated by the huge U.S. trade deficit, the Big Three help stave off the kind of dramatic dollar decline that could destabilize the U.S. financial markets and force a painful structural adjustment in the U.S. economy -- away from consumption-led growth and towards an export-led debt workout.
As a fringe benefit, the Big Three take all those unwanted dollars and invest them in U.S. Treasuries and other fixed-income securities -- including mortgage securities. So doing, they not only subsidize the U.S. Treasury, but also the big federal mortgage agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
This is an excellent analysis and highlights how dependent our current economy is on foriegn support - and how dependent foreign countries are on supporting the U. S. economy, even as it engages in a longterm losing strategy.
As long as the Big Three continue to prop up the greenback, they have to do something with all that green. Buying Treasuries (which at least pay a modest return) is the logical choice, even if it does keep U.S. bond yields down, which stimulates the economy, which worsens the trade deficit, which eventually forces the Big Three to buy the same dollars back again.
And, as Billmon notes, the current administration's economic policies, which have drastically increased federal debt and made the functioning of government totally dependent on borrowed money, has made foreign investors Bush's biggest supporters:
The Big Three seem determined to do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo, which in this case also includes GOP control of all three branches of the government.
Thursday, November 13, 2003
Frist Fizzles
As a transplanted Tennessean, I have to say that Bill Frist just irritates the hell out of me. The guy's fortune was made in a family business that recently paid a record $881 million to settle claims of Medicare fraud. Like the Bush family, that multi-generational criminal conspiracy, the Frists attempt to put a righteous face on contemptible behavior, but also like the current Bush in power, Bill Frist is essentially incompetent. Just witness the little charade he put on last night.
Soros vs Bush
George Soros, the savy investor who made a billion dollars in just one bet on the direction of the British pound, has targeted George Bush:
There are no deeper pockets, and he is organizing others in the super rich community. What pleases me most is that as someone who contributes small amounts to such efforts as those undertaken by groups like MoveOn.org, Soros has contributed money to them to act as matching funds.
Every little (or big) bit helps.
George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.
"It is the central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."
There are no deeper pockets, and he is organizing others in the super rich community. What pleases me most is that as someone who contributes small amounts to such efforts as those undertaken by groups like MoveOn.org, Soros has contributed money to them to act as matching funds.
Every little (or big) bit helps.
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
Bush Gets Help From Dean
Proving once again that even in politics for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction.
Winning Hearts and Minds
Yeah, we've liberated the Iraqi people from torture; we just shoot them. That way they don't suffer.
And, of course, we all know how well occupied people respond to threats of violence.
And, of course, we all know how well occupied people respond to threats of violence.
Monday, November 10, 2003
The Dems Dis DC
As much as SOB is pissed at the Bushies, he is also pissed at the lame, good for nothing Democratic mainstream. This week:
People who don't live in the District are not really aware of what the strange status of D.C. means; no representation in congress despite the highest municipal rates of taxes in the nation, no real say in local government because congress can veto any DC law or referendum, no control over local finances - no citizenship rights. So, for those of us who are Americans but who don't live in a "state" - what is our actual status? We are citizens who have no citizenship rights. It's insane.
Five Democrats have withdrawn from the District of Columbia's nonbinding presidential primary, the D.C. Board of Elections said Friday. Joe Lieberman, John Edwards, John Kerry, Dick Gephardt and Wesley Clark each delivered letters on Thursday stating their intention to withdraw from the Jan. 13 contest, Board of Elections spokesman Bill O'Field said. The Democratic National Committee does not recognize the primary because delegates will not be selected. The district will hold caucuses Feb. 14 to choose its delegates.
"It's a gutless move," said D.C. Councilman Jack Evans, the author of the legislation moving up the district's primary. "I hope none of them ever wins anything." . . . Evans said the move was especially offensive because Kerry, Gephardt and Lieberman all own homes in the Georgetown neighborhood. "I find it disappointing that three actual residents would disrespect their home town and disrespect a majority African-American jurisdiction." . . .
Tony Bullock, a spokesman for Mayor Anthony A. Williams, called it a slap in the face for the city. "We have been royally dissed by these five candidates," said Bullock.
People who don't live in the District are not really aware of what the strange status of D.C. means; no representation in congress despite the highest municipal rates of taxes in the nation, no real say in local government because congress can veto any DC law or referendum, no control over local finances - no citizenship rights. So, for those of us who are Americans but who don't live in a "state" - what is our actual status? We are citizens who have no citizenship rights. It's insane.
Bush vs Common Decency
There was a time when being a war profiteer was considered shameful. But we live in a world where making a profit - by whatever means - has become the summit of virtue, so those who profit from the suffering and death of others are not viewed with the contempt they deserve. Instead, as long as they are rich and powerful - regardless of how they got that way - they are celebrated and allowed to avoid the consequences that befall ordinary folk.
Perhaps no more forceful example of this can be seen than in the saga of the Bush family, that manages, generation to generation, to profit on the misery of others - even as they contribute to that misery. Consider the example of Dubyah's grandfather, Prescott Bush, rewarded for war profiteering by being elected to the U. S. Senate. But new information has prompted a call for revisiting the case:
For those who think that talk of Bush family war profiteering is conspiracy theory nonsense, consider that Bush senior works as a "consultant" for the Carlyle Group, a venture capitalist firm that has significant interests in military related businesses, had long partnered with Osama bin Laden's family, is dominated by oil interests and run by former government military and intelligence types. Billions of dollars provide a great incentive to park one's scruples at the door, and this seems to be what is done.
We have a miserable failure of a "president" who wants to trade on his wars for political advantage while lining his pockets at the expense of those who have to suffer and die because of his policies. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush gets praised for profiting from a war he started based on lies and manipulative propaganda. And people wonder why Americans are cynical about politics.
Perhaps no more forceful example of this can be seen than in the saga of the Bush family, that manages, generation to generation, to profit on the misery of others - even as they contribute to that misery. Consider the example of Dubyah's grandfather, Prescott Bush, rewarded for war profiteering by being elected to the U. S. Senate. But new information has prompted a call for revisiting the case:
After the seizures in late 1942 of five U.S. enterprises he managed on behalf of Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush, failed to divest himself of more than a dozen "enemy national" relationships that continued until as late as 1951, newly-discovered U.S. government documents reveal.
. . .
Now, say Fertik and Loftus, there should be a Congressional investigation into the Bush family's Nazi past and its concealment from the American people for 60 years.
"The American people have a right to know, in detail, about this hidden chapter of our history," says Loftus, author of The Secret War Against the Jews. "That's the only way we can understand it and deal with it."
For his part, Fertik is pessimistic that even a Congressional investigation can thwart the war profiteering of the present Bush White House. "It's impossible to stop it," he says, "when the worst war profiteers are George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, who operate in secrecy behind the vast powers of the White House."
For those who think that talk of Bush family war profiteering is conspiracy theory nonsense, consider that Bush senior works as a "consultant" for the Carlyle Group, a venture capitalist firm that has significant interests in military related businesses, had long partnered with Osama bin Laden's family, is dominated by oil interests and run by former government military and intelligence types. Billions of dollars provide a great incentive to park one's scruples at the door, and this seems to be what is done.
We have a miserable failure of a "president" who wants to trade on his wars for political advantage while lining his pockets at the expense of those who have to suffer and die because of his policies. Clinton was impeached for lying about a blowjob. Bush gets praised for profiting from a war he started based on lies and manipulative propaganda. And people wonder why Americans are cynical about politics.
Sunday, November 09, 2003
Kos Clobbers Bush
Daily Kos has what is perhaps the best summation of what is going on between the US and its pet politicos in Baghdad in a post entitled "When Your Puppets Don't Dance."
This quy is consistently one of the most intelligent observers of political realities as they unfold from day to day. Forget the BS in the Times and Post, read KOS.
This quy is consistently one of the most intelligent observers of political realities as they unfold from day to day. Forget the BS in the Times and Post, read KOS.
Gore vs Bush
SOB just returned from Constitution Hall, around the corner from the White House, where he heard Al Gore deliver a blistering critique of the Bush administration's assault on our civil rights. Delivered before a standing room only audience of invited MoveOn.org members, the speech essentially made the point that you can't defend America by compromising American principles. Interrupted by frequent applause and standing ovations, Gore looked and sounded like a candidate. Not that the Democrats are suffereing a deficit of candidates, but a Gore presense could sure engergize what is turning into a petty sideshow.
Among other points that generated a positive response from todays crowd were these words:
The entire speech is worth reading. If C-SPAN should happen to rebroadcast it, see it by all means.
It's sad to think that one has to be out of the actual process of running for office to be this blunt and asssertive about things that are so important to all of us. Where was this guy during the 2000 campaign? Oh, that's right, more than 500,000 more voters actually voted for him than Bush. But then, we had to move on.
Among other points that generated a positive response from todays crowd were these words:
I want to challenge the Bush Administration's implicit assumption that we have to give up many of our traditional freedoms in order to be safe from terrorists.
Because it is simply not true.
In fact, in my opinion, it makes no more sense to launch an assault on our civil liberties as the best way to get at terrorists than it did to launch an invasion of Iraq as the best way to get at Osama Bin Laden.
In both cases, the Administration has attacked the wrong target.
In both cases they have recklessly put our country in grave and unnecessary danger, while avoiding and neglecting obvious and much more important challenges that would actually help to protect the country.
In both cases, the administration has fostered false impressions and misled the nation with superficial, emotional and manipulative presentations that are not worthy of American Democracy.
In both cases they have exploited public fears for partisan political gain and postured themselves as bold defenders of our country while actually weakening not strengthening America.
In both cases, they have used unprecedented secrecy and deception in order to avoid accountability to the Congress, the Courts, the press and the people.
Indeed, this Administration has turned the fundamental presumption of our democracy on its head. A government of and for the people is supposed to be generally open to public scrutiny by the people -- while the private information of the people themselves should be routinely protected from government intrusion.
The entire speech is worth reading. If C-SPAN should happen to rebroadcast it, see it by all means.
It's sad to think that one has to be out of the actual process of running for office to be this blunt and asssertive about things that are so important to all of us. Where was this guy during the 2000 campaign? Oh, that's right, more than 500,000 more voters actually voted for him than Bush. But then, we had to move on.
Bush vs the Economy
The Bushies and their supportive chorus in the mainstream press are jumping up and down in gleeful praise of the recent spurt in economic growth and the addition of over 100,000 new jobs over the last month. But a more sober analysis of the situation does not lend itself to celebration yet:
When even his fellow conservatives say he has gone too far, those of us who opposed the policies from the first have reason to hope. Of course, the Bushies have shown no mercy to anyone in the past, so even their own will be mowed down if they get in the way. But we have to hope that eventually enough people will resent such treatment and stand up to oppose it.
Otherwise we're screwed.
But even a robust and long-running recovery will not produce enough revenue to erase the $5 trillion deficit that forecasters, including the Congressional Budget Office, say will accumulate over the next 10 years under Bush's policies. On that rising sea of red ink, interest rates will float upward, retarding economic growth and pushing the nation toward the brink of bankruptcy, critics warn.
In the face of these harsh facts, even some Republicans are beginning to suggest that Bush must reverse course on tax cuts.
"The deficit is clearly out of control," said former Rep. William Frenzel, R-Minn., a Bush backer who served in the House for 20 years and led House Budget Committee Republicans.
Frenzel brushes aside talk of economic recovery and spending restraint.
"You can't get there by that route," he said. Bush's tax cuts "in my judgment do have to be re-examined. Most pure-blood Republicans would throw me off a roof for saying that, but there's no question. We can't fuss around with $600 billion deficits as far as the eye can see."
When even his fellow conservatives say he has gone too far, those of us who opposed the policies from the first have reason to hope. Of course, the Bushies have shown no mercy to anyone in the past, so even their own will be mowed down if they get in the way. But we have to hope that eventually enough people will resent such treatment and stand up to oppose it.
Otherwise we're screwed.
Friday, November 07, 2003
More Proof that things in Iraq are "Improving" - Bush Style
Another helicopter down.
When will people start demanding to know what, exactly, Bush thinks we are doing here? How is military occupation supposed to translate into "democracy" in such a situation?
6 Dead as Army Helicopter Crashes in Iraq
Troops Ambushed in Mosul Amid Fears That Insurgency Spreading Northward
TIKRIT, Iraq -- An Army helicopter crashed Friday into a riverbank near Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, killing six U.S. soldiers, the military said. Another American was killed and nine were wounded in attacks in the northern city of Mosul, raising concerns that the insurgency was spreading north.
"Six soldiers were on board and all of them were killed," said Maj. Jossyln Aberle, a spokeswoman for the 4th Infantry Division based in Tikrit. All were from the 101st Airborne Division, she said.
When will people start demanding to know what, exactly, Bush thinks we are doing here? How is military occupation supposed to translate into "democracy" in such a situation?
Bush Speech Followup
The Washington Post this morning has several pieces following up on the miserable failure's words to the National Endowment for Democracy yesterday. Basically people are wondering what he is smoking:
Why should Bush worry about factual reality now? He never has before. Could it be that the public and the mainstream press are finally starting to notice that the emperor has no clothes?
"His portrayal of what's going on in Arab countries is totally unrealistic," said Marina Ottaway, co-director of the Democracy and Rule of Law Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"The reality that he is overlooking is that in all these countries that are supposedly making progress, hostility to the United States is at an all-time high," she said. "So the idea that these are countries where progress on democracy is going to make them better allies is certainly not supported by what is going on."
Why should Bush worry about factual reality now? He never has before. Could it be that the public and the mainstream press are finally starting to notice that the emperor has no clothes?
Thursday, November 06, 2003
Bush vs the Troops
Joe Consason at Salon presents the latest shameful Bush hypocrisy directed towards our armed forces:
The ugly hypocrisy of the Bush administration is truly amazing. At some point the general public has got to begin to get a sense of this, yet amazingly, a very large number of Americans continue to belive that Bush is "honest", "compassionate", "Christian", etc. Yes, thank God AL Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened. Those Democrats just don't appreciate our military men like the Republicans do.
What a bunch of shit!
Yesterday evening on the House floor, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., offered some angry perspective on the Bush administration's "support for our troops." A Vietnam-era Air Force veteran (although his own Web site omits that fact), DeFazio rose to contest the happy-face rhetoric of his Republican colleagues in anticipation of Veterans Day next Wednesday. DeFazio's remarks about the real record of the self-styled super-patriots in the GOP deserve to be quoted at length:
"Here are some real facts, unlike what we heard earlier today: 150,000 veterans are waiting six months or longer for appointments; 14,000 veterans have been waiting 15 months or longer for their "expedited" disability claims; 560,000 disabled veterans are subject to the disabled veterans tax, something we have tried to rectify.
"We have 373 cosponsors [to repeal that tax in the House]. There are only 435 people here. If 373 people want something, we should be able to do it, should we not? That is a super, super, super majority. But guess what? The Republican leadership, under urging from the president and Secretary Rumsfeld and threats of veto from the president, are refusing to bring up a repeal of the disabled veterans tax.
"We can have tax breaks for people who do not work for a living, the investor class. We can have tax breaks for whole hosts of people and things. But we cannot have tax relief for disabled veterans. Is that not extraordinary? President Bush refused to spend $275 million in emergency money for veterans' health care provided by Congress in the fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriations bill. But of course he wants to do everything he can to recognize the service of our veterans and our young men and women.
The ugly hypocrisy of the Bush administration is truly amazing. At some point the general public has got to begin to get a sense of this, yet amazingly, a very large number of Americans continue to belive that Bush is "honest", "compassionate", "Christian", etc. Yes, thank God AL Gore wasn't in office when 9/11 happened. Those Democrats just don't appreciate our military men like the Republicans do.
What a bunch of shit!
Bush Speak
Today our miserable failure of a president made what many are praising as a major speech for the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy. But despite the praise, the actual speech is a sorry load of horse shit that doesn't stand up to even the most minimal analysis. While it is an embarrassing example of many rhetorical gimmicks and cheap tricks, there are some specific points that are just laughable. Most of his examples of "democracy" are seriously lacking in any of the characteristics one usually associates with that term. For example, he praises Turkey and Indonesia as examples of Muslim countries that are examples of "Democratic progress" - ignoring the tendency of both countries to murder such of their citizens as resist being suppressed. Both of these countries have horrible histories of genocide, torture, and repression aimed at minority portions of their citizens - policies supported by U. S. supplied weapons and political clout. Since Bush pushes "liberty" and "freedom" as paramount virtues of democracy it is strange that countries that suppress those of their citizens who want their freedom are praised by him as examples of democracy.
Even stranger are his references to historical events that one knows he doesn't understand at all. Of course we recognize that he didn't write these words, but the fact that he would speak them with a straight face is a clear indication that he hasn't a clue what most of it means. Consider these words:
So do you have a clue what the reference to Greece in 1947 is about? Far from being an example of the "will of free peoples" being tested, this is one of the early examples of CIA meddling in another country's affairs. We intervened in the internal political process in Greece for fear that "left wing" elements might gain power. To prevent this, WE took power. It was supposed to be secret but everyone except the American public seemed painfully aware of what was going on:
Yeah, "democracy" is a wonderful thing; I'm sure the Greeks are proud to have invented it. But hey, this kind of double-think process of imposing our will on others and calling it freedom is just what we are doing in Iraq. After all, if you have all the power who'se going to call your hand?
Even stranger are his references to historical events that one knows he doesn't understand at all. Of course we recognize that he didn't write these words, but the fact that he would speak them with a straight face is a clear indication that he hasn't a clue what most of it means. Consider these words:
As in the defense of Greece in 1947, and later in the Berlin Airlift, the strength and will of free peoples are now being tested before a watching world. And we will meet this test. (Applause.)
So do you have a clue what the reference to Greece in 1947 is about? Far from being an example of the "will of free peoples" being tested, this is one of the early examples of CIA meddling in another country's affairs. We intervened in the internal political process in Greece for fear that "left wing" elements might gain power. To prevent this, WE took power. It was supposed to be secret but everyone except the American public seemed painfully aware of what was going on:
Greece becomes, as noted by Professor D.F. Fleming, cold war historian, " the first of the liberated states to be openly and forcibly compelled to accept the political system of the occupying Great Power. It was Churchill who acted first and Stalin who followed his example, in Bulgaria and then in Rumania, though with less bloodshed."
. . .
US military personnel took over command of the Greek military, effectively determining policy and strategy for them! According to Blum:
"All military training methods and programs were 'revised, revitalized and tightened up' under American supervision(21)... infantry units made more mobile, with increased firepower; special commando units trained in anti-guerrilla tactics; training in mountain warfare ... at American insistence, whole sections of the population uprooted to eliminate the guerrillas' natural base of operations and source of recruits...(p. 37)
From 1947 on, the US effectively controlled Greece. According to Andreas Papandreou, "In the economic sphere," [the United States] "exercised almost dictatorial control during the early fifties requiring that the signature of the chief of the U.S. Economic Mission appear alongside that of the Greek Minister of Co-ordination on any important documents."
A memo from the American Mission to Aid Greece (in Athens) to the State Department in Washington from November 17, 1947 said:
"we have established practical control ... over national budget, taxation, currency issuance, price and wage policies, and state economic planning, as well as over imports and exports, the issuance of foreign exchange and the direction of military reconstruction and relief expenditures."
Yeah, "democracy" is a wonderful thing; I'm sure the Greeks are proud to have invented it. But hey, this kind of double-think process of imposing our will on others and calling it freedom is just what we are doing in Iraq. After all, if you have all the power who'se going to call your hand?
Bush vs the Truth
David Corn has a great relatively new website, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Poliltics of Deception. Corn's new book, The Lies of George W. Bush is well worth reading. If you can't read the book, check out the website. This is the real stuff.
Bush vs Blue Skies
In its ongoing attack on everything positive that government does, the Bush administration's EPA has announced that new pollution rules will allow it to drop 50 cases that were under investigation:
And need we point out that "Representatives of the utility industry have been among President Bush's biggest campaign donors, and a change in the enforcement policies has been a top priority of the industry's lobbyists."
A change in enforcement policy will lead the Environmental Protection Agency to drop investigations into 50 power plants for past violations of the Clean Air Act, lawyers at the agency who were briefed on the decision this week said.
The lawyers said in interviews on Wednesday that the decision meant the cases would be judged under new, less stringent rules set to take effect next month, rather than the stricter rules in effect at the time the investigations began.
And need we point out that "Representatives of the utility industry have been among President Bush's biggest campaign donors, and a change in the enforcement policies has been a top priority of the industry's lobbyists."
The Principle of Least Effort
It is always interesting but probably of limited usefulness to apply social science research results to actual political behavior, but lately I have been thinking a lot about George Zipf's research into what he called "The Principle of Least Effort". This can be stated in a broad generalization as "a system will try to adapt to its environment or will try to change the environment to suit its needs, whichever is easier."
It is very interesting to view the behvior of the Republican and Democratic parties as distinct entities through this perspective. Both pursue courses of action that reflect what their leadership perceives as the course of least effort and since their actions are in many significant areas quite different, it says a lot about the psychological differences between convervatives, moderates, and liberals.
On the most fundamental level, the current crop of conservatives that make up the Bush administration and its supporting sycophants in congress, find that it takes the least effort to just make stuff up. Their approach to changing the environment is to use lies and demogogic language to create a verbal "reality" that matches their preferred vision rather than what might be agreed on by objective observers. And one thing has been painfully clear, simplistic argument and rhetorical consistency means it takes less effort for a majority of the public to buy their lies as truth.
It is very interesting to view the behvior of the Republican and Democratic parties as distinct entities through this perspective. Both pursue courses of action that reflect what their leadership perceives as the course of least effort and since their actions are in many significant areas quite different, it says a lot about the psychological differences between convervatives, moderates, and liberals.
On the most fundamental level, the current crop of conservatives that make up the Bush administration and its supporting sycophants in congress, find that it takes the least effort to just make stuff up. Their approach to changing the environment is to use lies and demogogic language to create a verbal "reality" that matches their preferred vision rather than what might be agreed on by objective observers. And one thing has been painfully clear, simplistic argument and rhetorical consistency means it takes less effort for a majority of the public to buy their lies as truth.
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
Bush Sucks
In case you didn't realize it, read this excellent piece:
If images are more important than issues, try this one on for size: The White House has banned the media from covering the arrival of the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers on all military bases; Bush himself has not attended a single one of these 340-plus homecomings. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is the Republican mantra, and they're sticking to it even as their ship runs headlong into a perfect political storm.
To wit: Republicans control the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. They control all three branches of government, have no checks and balances on their power. They also control Wall Street and the media. They not only run the show, they massage the message.
My point: This is their bad. By "this," I mean an all-time record federal budget deficit that's bleeding states, cities and towns dry ($374.2 billion for 2003, doubling last year's deficit and likely to reach $500 billion in 2004). "This" is a quagmire in Iraq that will not end soon, or well. "This" is virulent international pariah status, even among allies (Bush was heckled by Australians and Filipinos! Thai farmers put a curse on him!). "This" is setting back environmental progress 100 years. Etc.
In short, the GOP can no longer blame Bill, Hillary, Franklin Delano or Eleanor. Their so-called agenda has had time to prove itself, and it has proven only one thing: It's a miserable failure on all fronts (economic, environmental, racial, morality, foreign affairs, even war). The only things they have to show for themselves are Bush in that flight suit and 9/11. These are not reassuring items on which to build a campaign. Indeed, the foot-dragging on and censoring of the 9/11 probe (expunging links between Bush's Saudi pals and al Qaeda) and the ongoing Iraq carnage -- despite Bush in that victorious jock strap -- are too obvious even for Fox viewers to deny.
The amazing thing is that the opinion polls still show so many in favor of the criminal policies of this administration.
If images are more important than issues, try this one on for size: The White House has banned the media from covering the arrival of the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers on all military bases; Bush himself has not attended a single one of these 340-plus homecomings. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil is the Republican mantra, and they're sticking to it even as their ship runs headlong into a perfect political storm.
To wit: Republicans control the White House, Senate, House of Representatives and Supreme Court. They control all three branches of government, have no checks and balances on their power. They also control Wall Street and the media. They not only run the show, they massage the message.
My point: This is their bad. By "this," I mean an all-time record federal budget deficit that's bleeding states, cities and towns dry ($374.2 billion for 2003, doubling last year's deficit and likely to reach $500 billion in 2004). "This" is a quagmire in Iraq that will not end soon, or well. "This" is virulent international pariah status, even among allies (Bush was heckled by Australians and Filipinos! Thai farmers put a curse on him!). "This" is setting back environmental progress 100 years. Etc.
In short, the GOP can no longer blame Bill, Hillary, Franklin Delano or Eleanor. Their so-called agenda has had time to prove itself, and it has proven only one thing: It's a miserable failure on all fronts (economic, environmental, racial, morality, foreign affairs, even war). The only things they have to show for themselves are Bush in that flight suit and 9/11. These are not reassuring items on which to build a campaign. Indeed, the foot-dragging on and censoring of the 9/11 probe (expunging links between Bush's Saudi pals and al Qaeda) and the ongoing Iraq carnage -- despite Bush in that victorious jock strap -- are too obvious even for Fox viewers to deny.
The amazing thing is that the opinion polls still show so many in favor of the criminal policies of this administration.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Irony is Dead
According to the Washington Post:
Linda Tripp, who secretly taped Monica Lewinsky's confessions of a sexual affair with President Bill Clinton, will receive a lump-sum payment of $595,000 from the Defense Department to settle claims that officials violated her privacy by leaking personal information.
Under the terms of a court settlement announced yesterday, Tripp will also receive a retroactive promotion and retroactive pay at a higher salary level for 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Let's see, she invades Bill Clinton's privacy and he is left with huge legal bills. She complains of trivial revelations about her own tawdry life and is awarded more than half a million bucks.
The law - as Dickins has one of his characters say - is an ass, because this is what actually happened:
Mayer (a reporter writing a profile on Tripp) found Tripp’s step-mother, who blurted out that Tripp had been arrested. The step-mother, who has confirmed that she was the source of this information, and gave Mayer sufficient detail to allow her to file an FOIA request, and to track down Tripp’s arrest record from the local police station where she was busted.
Armed with a facsimile of her arrest, Mayer then called the Pentagon, to see whether the Defense Department had any record of her arrest, and to see whether she had properly disclosed it, as is required under the law. The press office at the Pentagon checked her record, and reported back to Mayer that Tripp had no arrest record, as far as they knew.
This was the ostensible infringement of Tripp’s privacy. The government did not disclose her arrest record. The government attempted to suggest she had no arrest record. It was her step-mother who blew the whistle on her, not the government. And it was old-fashioned, factual reporting that disclosed that Tripp lied to get a top security clearance.
What a bunch of shit - if you are a lying, manipulative, sociopathic, criminial, the system really works for you. Just ask George W. Bush.
Linda Tripp, who secretly taped Monica Lewinsky's confessions of a sexual affair with President Bill Clinton, will receive a lump-sum payment of $595,000 from the Defense Department to settle claims that officials violated her privacy by leaking personal information.
Under the terms of a court settlement announced yesterday, Tripp will also receive a retroactive promotion and retroactive pay at a higher salary level for 1998, 1999 and 2000.
Let's see, she invades Bill Clinton's privacy and he is left with huge legal bills. She complains of trivial revelations about her own tawdry life and is awarded more than half a million bucks.
The law - as Dickins has one of his characters say - is an ass, because this is what actually happened:
Mayer (a reporter writing a profile on Tripp) found Tripp’s step-mother, who blurted out that Tripp had been arrested. The step-mother, who has confirmed that she was the source of this information, and gave Mayer sufficient detail to allow her to file an FOIA request, and to track down Tripp’s arrest record from the local police station where she was busted.
Armed with a facsimile of her arrest, Mayer then called the Pentagon, to see whether the Defense Department had any record of her arrest, and to see whether she had properly disclosed it, as is required under the law. The press office at the Pentagon checked her record, and reported back to Mayer that Tripp had no arrest record, as far as they knew.
This was the ostensible infringement of Tripp’s privacy. The government did not disclose her arrest record. The government attempted to suggest she had no arrest record. It was her step-mother who blew the whistle on her, not the government. And it was old-fashioned, factual reporting that disclosed that Tripp lied to get a top security clearance.
What a bunch of shit - if you are a lying, manipulative, sociopathic, criminial, the system really works for you. Just ask George W. Bush.
Monday, November 03, 2003
Byrd vs Bush
By way of Commondreams.org:
A High Price for a Hollow Victory
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks
November 3, 2003
Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks as the Senate debated whether to grant final Congressional approval to the President's $87 billion funding request for the military and Iraqi reconstruction.
The Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lock-step partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark.
In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions that the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill - such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants - were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the presidency.
Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, and yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubber stamp the President's request.
Perhaps this take-no-prisoners approach is how the President and his advisers define victory, but I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.
Consider, for example, that before the war, the President's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
The international community, on which the Administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the President claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.
But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln - - strategically postured beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" - - and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq, and nearly two-thirds of those deaths - 238 - have occurred since May 1. When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, "Bring 'em on" on July 2, the enemy did indeed "bring them on", and with a vengeance! Since the President made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. And as the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on "bringing 'em on."
The $66 billion in this supplemental, required to continue the U.S. military occupation of Iraq over the next year, and the steadily rising death toll, are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to "bring 'em on".
It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help - not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering - to American forces in Iraq. The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the Administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this Administration's Iraq policy - endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental - it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.
The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday - the deaths of 16 soldiers in the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier in a bomb attack, and the deaths of two American civilian contractors in a mine explosion - is only the latest evidence that the Administration's lack of post-war planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little if any headway in stabilizing or improving security in the country.
The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq - including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the U.S. helicopter on Sunday - is one of many mistakes that the Administration made that is coming back to haunt us today. But perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake - following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq - - is the Administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.
The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq, that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time - past time - for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for American troops in Iraq. It is the American people who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.
It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before us does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver. I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. But I have even greater respect and affection for the institution of the Senate and the Constitution by which it was established.
Every Senator, upon taking office, swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is the Constitution - not the President, not a political party, but the Constitution - to which Senators swear an oath of loyalty. And I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was one that I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second vote on whether to release it. Apparently, the President and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress - or lack of progress - in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort.
Time after time, the conference committee was given opportunities to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental. And time after time, the conference majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated, on a party line vote, an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President, not to Congress or the American people.
The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. And I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?
The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor, my amendment requiring such audits was adopted 97 to 0. In the House-Senate conference, it was defeated by the Senate conferees on a 15 to 14 straight-line party vote.
Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as "flexibilities" give the President broad authority to take the money appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities - and in a few cases succeeded - but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, these so-called "flexibilities" effectively transfer the power of the purse from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.
The dictionary definition of victory is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the President.
But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe that most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm-twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct.
Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 BC, Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in Northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 BC, but suffered unbearably heavy losses. "One more such victory and I am lost," he said.
It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term "pyrrhic victory," to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental, and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush Administration.
The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not good policy for the United States.
Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes, victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America. I oppose it and I will vote No on final passage.
A High Price for a Hollow Victory
by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks
November 3, 2003
Senator Byrd delivered the following remarks as the Senate debated whether to grant final Congressional approval to the President's $87 billion funding request for the military and Iraqi reconstruction.
The Iraq supplemental conference report before the Senate today has been widely described as a victory for President Bush. If hardball politics and lock-step partisanship are the stuff of which victory is made, then I suppose the assessments are accurate. But if reasoned discourse, integrity, and accountability are the measures of true victory, then this package falls far short of the mark.
In the end, the President wrung virtually every important concession he sought from the House-Senate conference committee. Key provisions that the Senate had debated extensively, voted on, and included in its version of the bill - such as providing half of the Iraq reconstruction funding in the form of loans instead of grants - were thrown overboard in the conference agreement. Senators who had made compelling arguments on the Senate floor only days earlier to limit American taxpayers' liability by providing some of the Iraq reconstruction aid in the form of loans suddenly reversed their position in conference and bowed to the power of the presidency.
Before us today is a massive $87 billion supplemental appropriations package that commits this nation to a long and costly occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, and yet the collective wisdom of the House and Senate appropriations conference that produced it was little more than a shadow play, choreographed to stifle dissent and rubber stamp the President's request.
Perhaps this take-no-prisoners approach is how the President and his advisers define victory, but I fear they are fixated on the muscle of the politics instead of the wisdom of the policy. The fact of the matter is, when it comes to policy, the Iraq supplemental is a monument to failure.
Consider, for example, that before the war, the President's policy advisers assured the American people that Iraq would largely be able to finance its own reconstruction through oil revenues, seized assets, and increased economic productivity. The $18 billion in this supplemental earmarked for the reconstruction of Iraq is testament to the fallacy of that prediction. It is the American taxpayer, not the Iraqi oil industry, that is being called upon to shoulder the financial burden of rebuilding Iraq.
The international community, on which the Administration pinned such hope for helping in the reconstruction of Iraq, has collectively ponied up only $13 billion, and the bulk of those pledges, $9 billion, is in the form of loans or credits, not grants. But still, the President claims victory for arm-twisting Congress into reversing itself on the question of loans and providing the entire $18 billion in U.S. tax dollars in the form of outright grants to Iraq. I readily admit that how this convoluted logic can be construed as a victory for the President is beyond me.
But reconstruction is only part of the story. On May 1, the President stood on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln - - strategically postured beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished" - - and pronounced the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Since that day, however, more American military personnel have been killed in Iraq than were killed during the major combat phase of the war. According to the Defense Department, 376 American troops have been killed to date in Iraq, and nearly two-thirds of those deaths - 238 - have occurred since May 1. When President Bush uttered the unwise challenge, "Bring 'em on" on July 2, the enemy did indeed "bring them on", and with a vengeance! Since the President made that comment, more than 165 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. And as the death toll mounts, it has become clear that the enemy intends to keep on "bringing 'em on."
The $66 billion in this supplemental, required to continue the U.S. military occupation of Iraq over the next year, and the steadily rising death toll, are testament to the utter hollowness of the President's declaration aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the careless bravado of his challenge to "bring 'em on".
It has been said many times on the floor of this Senate that a vote for this supplemental is a vote for our troops in Iraq. The implication is that a vote against the supplemental is a vote against our troops. I find that twisted logic to be both irrational and offensive. To my mind, backing a flawed policy with a flawed appropriations bill hurts our troops in Iraq more than it helps them. Endorsing and funding a policy that does nothing to relieve American troops in Iraq is not, in my opinion, a "support the troops" measure. Our troops in Iraq and elsewhere in the world have no stronger advocate than Robert C. Byrd. I support our troops, I pray for their safety, and I will continue to fight for a coherent policy that brings real help - not just longer deployments and empty sloganeering - to American forces in Iraq. The supplemental package before us does nothing to internationalize the occupation of Iraq and, therefore, it is not -- I say NOT -- a vote "for our troops" in Iraq. We had a chance, in the beginning, to win international consensus on dealing with Iraq, but the Administration squandered that opportunity when the President gave the back of his hand to the United Nations and preemptively invaded Iraq. Under this Administration's Iraq policy - endorsed in the President's so-called victory on this supplemental - it is American troops who are walking the mean streets of Baghdad and American troops who are succumbing in growing numbers to a common and all too deadly cocktail of anti-American bombs and bullets in Iraq.
The terrible violence in Iraq on Sunday - the deaths of 16 soldiers in the downing of an American helicopter, the killing of another soldier in a bomb attack, and the deaths of two American civilian contractors in a mine explosion - is only the latest evidence that the Administration's lack of post-war planning for Iraq is producing an erratic, chaotic situation on the ground with little hope for a quick turnaround. We appear to be lurching from one assault on our troops to the next while making little if any headway in stabilizing or improving security in the country.
The failure to secure the vast stockpiles of deadly conventional weapons in Iraq - including shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles such as the one that may have brought down the U.S. helicopter on Sunday - is one of many mistakes that the Administration made that is coming back to haunt us today. But perhaps the biggest mistake, the costliest mistake - following the colossal mistake of launching a preemptive attack on Iraq - - is the Administration's failure to have a clearly defined mission and exit strategy for Iraq.
The President continues to insist that the United States will persevere in its mission in Iraq, that our resolve is unshakable. But it is time - past time - for the President to tell the American people exactly what that mission is, how he intends to accomplish it, and what his exit strategy is for American troops in Iraq. It is the American people who will ultimately decide how long we will stay in Iraq.
It is not enough for the President to maintain that the United States will not be driven out of Iraq by the increasing violence against American soldiers. He must also demonstrate leadership by presenting the American people with a plan to stem the freewheeling violence in Iraq, return the government of that country to the Iraqi people, and pave the way for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. We do not now have such a plan, and the supplemental conference report before us does not provide such a plan. The $87 billion in this appropriations bill provides the wherewithal for the United States to stay the course in Iraq when what we badly need is a course correction. The President owes the American people an exit strategy for Iraq, and it is time for him to deliver. I have great respect and affection for my fellow Senators and my colleagues on the Senate Appropriations Committee. But I have even greater respect and affection for the institution of the Senate and the Constitution by which it was established.
Every Senator, upon taking office, swears an oath to support and defend the Constitution. It is the Constitution - not the President, not a political party, but the Constitution - to which Senators swear an oath of loyalty. And I am here to tell you that neither the Constitution nor the American people are well served by a process and a product that are based on blind adherence to the will of the President at the expense of congressional checks and balances. It is as if, in a rush to support the President's policy, this White House is prepared to put blinders on the Congress.
This supplemental spending bill is a case in point. One of the earliest amendments that was defeated on the Senate floor was one that I offered to hold back a portion of the reconstruction money and give the Senate a second vote on whether to release it. Apparently, the President and his supporters did not want to give the Senate an opportunity to review the progress - or lack of progress - in Iraq and have a second chance to debate the wisdom of spending billions of taxpayers' dollars on the reconstruction effort.
Time after time, the conference committee was given opportunities to restore or impose accountability on the administration for the money being appropriated in the Iraq supplemental. And time after time, the conference majority beat back those measures. The conferees, for example, defeated, on a party line vote, an amendment I offered which would have required that the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq be confirmed by the Senate. Senate confirmation would have ensured that the person who is managing tens of billions of dollars in Iraq for the American taxpayers would be accountable to the public. The current appointee, L. Paul Bremer III, is not. He answers to the Secretary of Defense and the President, not to Congress or the American people.
The conferees approved a provision creating an inspector general for the Coalition Provisional Authority, but I am dismayed that this individual is not subject to Senate confirmation. I am dismayed that the conferees defeated my amendment that would have required the inspector general to testify before Congress when invited. And I am dismayed that the President can refuse to send Congress the results of the inspector general's work. Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress are afraid to hear what the inspector general might tell them? Could it be that the President's supporters in Congress would rather blindly follow the President instead of risking reality by opening their eyes to what could be uncomfortable facts?
The conference also stripped out my amendment to the Senate bill that would have required the General Accounting Office to conduct ongoing audits of the expenditure of taxpayer dollars for the reconstruction of Iraq. On the Senate floor, my amendment requiring such audits was adopted 97 to 0. In the House-Senate conference, it was defeated by the Senate conferees on a 15 to 14 straight-line party vote.
Sprinkled throughout the Iraq supplemental conference report, provisions euphemistically described as "flexibilities" give the President broad authority to take the money appropriated by Congress in this bill and spend it however he wishes. I tried to eliminate or limit these flexibilities - and in a few cases succeeded - but there remain billions of dollars in this measure that can be spent at the discretion of the President or the Secretary of Defense. Although the money is appropriated by Congress, these so-called "flexibilities" effectively transfer the power of the purse from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch.
The dictionary definition of victory is simple and straightforward: success, conquest, triumph. Within the constraints of that simplistic definition, I suppose one could construe this package to be a victory for the President.
But I believe there is a moral undercurrent to the notion of victory that is not reflected in the dictionary definition. I believe that most Americans equate victory more closely with what is right than with simply winning. It is one thing to win, and the tactics be damned; it is quite another to be victorious. Victory implies doing what is right; doing what is right implies morality; morality implies standards of conduct. I do not include arm-twisting and intimidation in my definition of exemplary standards of conduct.
Moreover, we should not forget that not all victories are created equal. In 280 BC, Pyrrhus, the ruler of Epirus in Northern Greece, took his formidable armies to Italy and defeated the Romans at Heraclea, and again at Asculum in 279 BC, but suffered unbearably heavy losses. "One more such victory and I am lost," he said.
It is to Pyrrhus that we owe the term "pyrrhic victory," to describe a victory so costly as to be ruinous. This supplemental, and the policy which it supports, unfortunately, may prove to be a pyrrhic victory for the Bush Administration.
The conference report before the Senate today is a flawed agreement that was produced by political imperative, not by reasoned policy considerations. This is not a good bill for our troops in Iraq. This is not a good bill for American taxpayers. This is not good policy for the United States.
Victory is not always about winning. Sometimes, victory is simply about being right. This conference report does not reflect the right policy for Iraq or the right policy for America. I oppose it and I will vote No on final passage.
Bush vs Democracy in Iraq
What is the slogan from the American Revolution that today's patriots can still respond to with feeling? NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION! We understand that - and those of us who live in our nation's capitol - where we have very steep rates of taxation and no say in the matter - REALLY respond to it. So we must sympathize with our Iraqi brethren upon whom their unelected ruler - Viceroy Paul Bremer - has just imposed a flat tax of 15% on personal and corporate income. While conservatives are thrilled at the opportunity to experiment with this simplified across the board "equal" tax rate, those who must pay it may be excused for thinking that it is a peculiar form of "freedom" that forces them to pay ANY tax they have no say in. Is this the road to democracy that our neocon leaders are following? Of course, some of the extreme wing-nuts are ecstatic:
"It's extremely good news," said Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a Bush administration ally. Bremer's vaguely worded edict leaves open the possibility that Iraqis could face different levels of taxation below 15 percent, but "they told me it's a flat rate and it appears as though it's a flat rate," Norquist said. The tax fighter added: "It might be a hint to the rest of us."
A hint to the rest of us? What, if don't adopt the Bush version of simplified tax that would shift the burden of taxation mostly to poor and middle class citizens we could, like the Iraqis, be bombed into submission? I wouldn't put it past them.
"It's extremely good news," said Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform and a Bush administration ally. Bremer's vaguely worded edict leaves open the possibility that Iraqis could face different levels of taxation below 15 percent, but "they told me it's a flat rate and it appears as though it's a flat rate," Norquist said. The tax fighter added: "It might be a hint to the rest of us."
A hint to the rest of us? What, if don't adopt the Bush version of simplified tax that would shift the burden of taxation mostly to poor and middle class citizens we could, like the Iraqis, be bombed into submission? I wouldn't put it past them.
Bush vs the Iraqi People
The Sunday New York Times Magazine has a great piece about the ongoing "mess" that is the "coalition" occupation of Iraq:
On the streets of Baghdad today, Americans do not feel welcome. United States military personnel in the city are hunkered down behind acres of fencing and razor wire inside what was once Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. When L. Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, leaves the compound, he is always surrounded by bodyguards, carbines at the ready, and G.I.'s on patrol in the city's streets never let their hands stray far from the triggers of their machine guns or M-16 rifles. The official line from the White House and the Pentagon is that things in Baghdad and throughout Iraq are improving. But an average of 35 attacks are mounted each day on American forces inside Iraq by armed resisters of one kind or another, whom American commanders concede are operating with greater and greater sophistication. In the back streets of Sadr City, the impoverished Baghdad suburb where almost two million Shiites live -- and where Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles once imagined American troops would be welcomed with sweets and flowers -- the mood, when I visited in September, was angry and resentful. In October, the 24-member American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council warned of a deteriorating security situation.
This is balanced, thoughtful, thorough, and very much worth your time. In spite of its usual spin and shallowness, every now and again the Times delivers.
On the streets of Baghdad today, Americans do not feel welcome. United States military personnel in the city are hunkered down behind acres of fencing and razor wire inside what was once Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. When L. Paul Bremer III, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, leaves the compound, he is always surrounded by bodyguards, carbines at the ready, and G.I.'s on patrol in the city's streets never let their hands stray far from the triggers of their machine guns or M-16 rifles. The official line from the White House and the Pentagon is that things in Baghdad and throughout Iraq are improving. But an average of 35 attacks are mounted each day on American forces inside Iraq by armed resisters of one kind or another, whom American commanders concede are operating with greater and greater sophistication. In the back streets of Sadr City, the impoverished Baghdad suburb where almost two million Shiites live -- and where Bush administration officials and Iraqi exiles once imagined American troops would be welcomed with sweets and flowers -- the mood, when I visited in September, was angry and resentful. In October, the 24-member American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council warned of a deteriorating security situation.
This is balanced, thoughtful, thorough, and very much worth your time. In spite of its usual spin and shallowness, every now and again the Times delivers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
