Sam Smith on Fighting for Democracy

This speech was censored by C-SPAN

From Sam Smith's Progressive Review, a repeat of a 1999 speech made on the National Mall:

I am a native of this place. You might even call me an ethnic Washingtonian. For two centuries, this little colony of America has been denied the rights called for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and more recently in the Charter of the United Nations.
At no time during this 200 years, however, has a single bomb been dropped on our behalf. In fact President Clinton and the Congress, now busy saving the Kosovars -- whether they survive to thank us or not -- conspired to remove what little self-government we had on the grounds of a budget deficit worth about the cost of four nights' Belgrade bombing runs. It was the greatest disenfranchisement of African-Americans since the end of post-reconstruction in the 19th century.

You will excuse me, therefore, if I am a bit skeptical about current professions of interest in democracy in distant places. As the Washington Star said many years ago, "What right have we to hurl denunciations and epithets at dictatorships and totalitarian states in other parts, when an almost perfect example of irresponsible forms of government is maintained by our national government in our own national capital?"
. . .
By the count of author Bill Blum, since 1945 we have bombed China, Korea, Guatemala, Indonesia, Cuba, Congo, Peru, Laos, Vietnam, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq, Sudan, Afghanistan, and Yugoslavia.
The most striking exception to the ubiquitous futility of these deadly adventures has been a single unqualified military triumph -- we brought Grenada to her knees.

At what point does the constant reiteration of failed and fatal policy become a war crime and reckless incompetence become grotesque cruelty and tactics of death become -- to use a term used casually these days -- genocide?

Well, consider this. The Holocaust resulted in some six million deaths. Now here are some other figures:

There were nearly two million killed during the Vietnam war, most by air attacks that dropped twice as many bombs as we did in all of World War II -- nearly one 500-pound bomb per person. One million civilians were killed by our strategic bombing in Japan even before we got to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More than two million civilians were killed in our bombing runs over North Korea. And one million Iraqi have died as a result of our sanctions.

Add these up and you come to the same figure as the Holocaust. Which is shocking enough until you realize that together, the Holocaust and our bombing raids of the past fifty years represent less than ten percent of all the deaths by warfare in our century.

And this is just the beginning of Smith's remarks. No wonder C-Span censored him. The truth is always hard to take, but read the entire article, it's really important every now and then to have a cold shower of truth to counteract the cozy, warm lies of the corporate media.

Bush in Iraq: Another Miserable Failure

'Tuck tail and run'


William Rivers Pitt puts the "handover" of "sovereignty" into sane perspective:

The American people are not comfortable dealing with words like "total failure" and "ruined credibility," but these are words that all of us are going to have to become accustomed to.

A process that began in September 2002 as a coordinated propaganda blitz to convince Americans they were on the verge of being gassed by an Osama-Saddam Axis of Doom, a process that was swathed in flags and a snarling, nationalistic patriotism, a process that has in the last 22 months delivered 855 dead American soldiers, thousands of gravely wounded American soldiers and over ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians to our collective doorstep, has now concluded with a farcical handover of 'sovereignty' in the dead of night.

One can almost imagine American proconsul Paul Bremer handing the keys to this rolling bomb over to former CIA pal and newly-minted Iraqi 'Prime Minister' Iyad Allawi with a snicker and a shrug. Thanks for the laughs, Iyad, but my helicopter is waiting on the roof.

Read the complete article. Pitt is one of those rare souls who is able to damp his righteous anger into majestic prose that really sears one's soul. Go there.

Bush's Failed Conservative Agenda

Failed Conservative Policies

Laurie Spivak points out something that should be obvious to us but seeminly is not - the host of problems we are facing with the economy and stability of State and local governments is the result of decades of "failed conservative policies.":

Let's start with the basics. Conservatives turned a $127 billion budget surplus into record-shattering deficits with reckless tax cuts; in 2004 alone, the deficit is expected to reach $500 billion. Poverty is on the rise with more than 34 million Americans living below the poverty line, including 12 million children. As for the first job-loss recovery since the Great Depression, it's an "upside down recovery" according to the Center for American Progress, meaning that corporate profits have risen at the expense of wages and employment. At the same time the costs of housing, gas, and medical care have all surged by double digits, not to mention that 20 million working Americans have no health insurance. Conservatives' answer? Not surprisingly, Washington's one-trick ponies call for more tax cuts for the rich. More of the same failed conservative policies.
. . .
In 2005, states' deficits are expected to exceed $35 billion, in part the result of two decades of "devolution," forcing almost every state in the nation to make drastic cutbacks. Last January in Alabama, public schools ran out of money for textbooks, state troopers were cut back to a four-day work week, and plans were made to release 5,000 nonviolent felons from prison in the coming year. In Oregon, some schools shut their doors a month early, courthouses went to a four-day week, and thousands lost prescription drug coverage. Conservatives responded with multi-million dollar anti-tax campaigns against commonsense revenue reforms that could have saved these fundamental services. Just more of the same failed conservative policies.

If the '60s and '70s were the decades of failed liberal policies, then the '80s, '90s, and the beginning of the 21st century will be remembered as the era of failed conservative policies. What America is experiencing today is far more than policy failures under the leadership of George W. Bush. It is the impact of more than two decades of ascendant conservative ideology -- a legacy of extreme individualism, deregulation, and anti-tax zealotry. It is this wholesale failure of these conservative policies that has led to today's record deficits, state budget crises, collapsing public schools, cuts in funding for domestic security, a besieged environment, and crony capitalism.

It's time to really start a major push-back camapaign against these policies. Our problem isn't just George W. Bush, it is his pushing these failed and dangerous policies against very little public criticism and almost no media analysis. We have to bring this whole set of conservative ideas and their ugly consequences to a prominent place in public debate. Otherwise, even when we have disposed of Bush we will still face the entrenched consequences of his failed policies.

Bush Team Flees Iraq

Paul Bremer Runs Away

For people who were not going to "cut and run" but were determined to "stay the course," our former chief dude in Iraq set a very poor example. Paul Bremer, head of the now-no-longer Coalition Provisional Authority, transferred "sovereignty" to the U.S. appointed puppet interim "government" today - two days ahead of schedule - and quickly fled the country. As Prof. Juan Cole sees it:

It is hard to interpret this move as anything but a precipitous flight. It is just speculation on my part, but I suspect that the Americans must have developed intelligence that there might be a major strike on the Coalition Provisional Headquarters on Wednesday if a formal ceremony were held to mark a transfer of sovereignty. Since the US military is so weak in Iraq and appears to have poor intelligence on the guerrilla insurgency, the Bush administration could not take the chance that a major bombing or other attack would mar the ceremony.

The surprise move will throw off all the major news organizations, which were planning intensive coverage of the ceremonies originally planned for Wednesday.

This entire exercise is a publicity stunt and has almost no substance to it. Gwen Ifill said on US television on Sunday that she had talked to Condaleeza Rice, and that her hope was that when something went wrong in Iraq, the journalists would now grill Allawi about it rather than the Bush administration. (Or words to that effect). Ifill seems to me to have given away the whole Bush show. That's what this whole thing is about. It is Public Relations and manipulation of journalists. Let's see if they fall for it.

The bigger picture is simply that Donald Rumsfeld has dumped the Iraqi mess into Colin Powell's lap. The real "transfer" has been from attention on the military to attention on the State Department - at least that is what the heavies in this scenario are planning. Who is now going to be blamed for the increasing chaos and disorder in Iraq? The Bushies want it to be Powell's State Department - even though they are only now inheriting a situation that the Pentagon has polluted beyond repair.

This is really such a cynical exercise in misdirection. About all this administration is capable of.

SOB Offline

SOB will be offline this weekend, so there will be no posts till Monday. Talk amongst yourselves.

Bush Leading Us Over the Cliff

Vietnam on Crack II

An excellent analysis at Billmon's 'Whisky Bar' website shows how the war in Iraq is likely already lost:

Awhile back I suggested that the emerging conventional wisdom about the Iraq War - that it's the Vietnam War on speed - needed to be revised. Iraq is actually Vietnam on crack: more dangerous, more psychotic, and turning into a basket case even faster than your average crystal meth addict.

And that was before we learned about Abu Ghrab.

The entire post well worth reading. It represents some of the best thinking and most accurate historical perspective I have seen on this topic.

Unbelievable but True

In the most Orwellian use of language I have seen from the Bushies in a long time, this message appears on the Coalition Provisional Authority's official website:

For security reasons, there are no security reports

I guess that says it all.

Bush vs Reality in Iraq

Iraq Getting Better?

In the face of continuing assurances from the Bush administration that good progress is being made in Iraq and that "full sovereignty" is being turned over to the Iraqis next week, actual reports of the situation in that tragic country offer dramatic contradictory evidence:

"The brazenness and frequency of all kinds of insurgent assaults, from car bombings to mortar attacks and rocket fire to the roadside bombs hidden under trash, in goat carcasses, in date palm logs, inside barrels or under asphalt, have made one more and more likely to actually witness rather than just hear about an act of mayhem ... I have covered conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Somalia, Chechnya and Kosovo and, during last year's invasion of Iraq, the fighting in Kurdistan, as well as coup and civil strife in Panama and Haiti, and riots in Miami. Each one presented its own menu of bullets, bombings, anarchy, anger and vulnerable situations... But rarely have I been in a place where danger arrives from so many directions as in Iraq."

We are not in a position to turn over something we do not have. In Iraq, no one is in charge. No one has sovereignty. And after the official "hand over" that will still be the case. Prior to June 30 we had the Coalition Provisional Authority hiding in Saddam's old palace in the Green Zone. After that date we will have the massive and useless new U.S. embassy in the same situation and the same place. We trade insider technocrat Paul Bremmer for the ever sinister John Negraponte, a man used to dealing with embassies bloated with CIA black-ops types engaged in bringing "democracy" to the world through intimidation and terror.

Remembering the death and destruction that Negraponte presided over in Central America during the Reagan years should chill the hearts of all Iraqis who will now be within his reach. Bremmer just sold off the country's wealth; Negraponte will preside over the process of insuring the submission of Iraq's people to that theft.

More Bush vs Iraqi Soveriegnty

A really good overview of the Iraqi "sovereignty" shell game can be found in a Bob Harris piece on This Modern World. His conclusion? "Sovereignty" means whatever we say it means.

More Bush vs the Geneva Convention

Prof. Michael Froomkin at Discourse.Net has an excellent analysis of the multiple slimy torture memos produced by the Bush administration to justify the president in whatever he elected to do with detainees. The most detailed treatment - very eye-opening - can be found here

It is worth considering just one of the many truly unbelievably stupid positions expressed in these memos because it casts such clear light on what is most wrong with this administration:

This Bush order applies to the Afghanistan Taliban, and to alleged al-Qaida members in Iraq and worldwide; it says they don't have rights, but doesn't say that they should be tortured; rather it says they should be treated 'humanely' and that they should be given Geneva-like privileges when not too inconvenient to do so.

The order accepts the Royalist theory of Presidential power, but says it declines to apply it: "I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time."

In other words, Bush truly believes that he has the right "under the Constitution" to suspend treaty obligations at will. This belief is either criminal or insane and potentially both. There is nothing in the Constitution that even suggests that the president can chose when to abide by a treaty and when not to. Article VI of the Constitution is quite clear that "all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land" - in other words, a finalized treaty is an extension of the Constitution (the supreme law of the land). Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint that the president can supend any part of the law at will. For Bush to proclaim that he has such power should scare the hell out of all of us.

Bush vs the Geneva Convention

Bush: 'I have never ordered torture'

With every statement he digs himself a deeper hole. Consider:

President Bush said Tuesday that he had never sanctioned any torture techniques, as the White House sought to defuse questions about the interrogation of military prisoners.

"Look, let me make very clear the position of my government and our country," Bush said in the Oval Office.

"We do not condone torture. I have never ordered torture. I will never order torture. The values of this country are such that torture is not a part of our soul and our being."
. . .
"Our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment," Bush wrote in the memo dated February 7, 2002. "Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles."

Wouldn't you just love to know who those people are that Bush thinks are not entitled to such treatment? Doesn't this idiot have a staff that actually understands the law? Can't they explain it to him so that he actually grasps the basic concept that no human being is excluded from human rights protection - even of our own Constitution? Remember the Declaration of Independence? "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. . ."

There is no class of human being that it is acceptable to exempt from legal protection. If we agree that we can do that to "them" what then protects "us"?

Bush vs Gays in the Military

Military Boots 770 Gays From Its Ranks

It's hard to believe - but then it is 'The New American Century' - so I guess shooting ourselves in the foot in celebration of bigoted beliefs is now considered patriotic. Apart from the idiocy of discharging hundreds of competent soldiers merely because one believes their sexual orientation to be 'sinful', it seems that this group contained a disproportionate number of those specialties that are now in great demand - such as linguists. But it seems that Dubya and company would rather be 'right' than successful.

It maybe should be mentioned here that the only Anglo who has ever had spectacular success working with Arabs in a desperate military situation was T. E. Lawrence - an extremely bright - and unquestionably gay - British intellectual without a macho bone in his body. Contrary to all the stereotypes, this very unpretentious mapmaker and linguist working as a minor functionary for the British Army in Egypt, managed, mostly on his own initiative, to unite the Arab tribes in a partisan war against the Turks. 'Lawrence of Arabia' created the only spectacular Allied success in the Middle East during WWI. Today, if he were in the U.S. Army, he would be cast out.

With Bush Friends Like These We Don't Need Enemies

Report: Saudi Police Assisted Abduction

According to a report in the Associated Press:

Al-Qaida militants disguised in police uniforms and cars provided by sympathizers in the Saudi security forces set up a fake checkpoint to snare the American engineer they later beheaded, according to an account of the operation posted on an Islamic extremist Web site Sunday.

The account of Paul M. Johnson Jr's abduction highlighted fears that some diplomats and Westerners in the kingom have expressed, that militants have infiltrated Saudi security forces, a possibility Saudi officials have denied.

In a separate article on the Web site, the leader of the al-Qaida cell behind the abduction justified the targeting of Johnson, pointing to his work on Apache attack helicopters for Lockheed Martin.

It is interesting that this sort of reflects the situation with Nicholas Berg who was beheaded in Iraq by others claiming to be affiliated with al Quaeda. In his case as well he was picked up by "security" forces prior to being kidnapped and executed. Both cases raise numerous questons. We have to assume this is the beginning of a trend. Not a good one, as we hear today:

The Arabic-language television network Al-Jazeera broadcast a videotape Sunday night of a man identified as a South Korean hostage whose captors threatened to behead him unless his government quits the U.S.-led coalition occupying Iraq.

What will it take to stop this? Obviously Bush has no clue.

Bush: America's "Spiritual Leader"

On 9/11, a Telling Seven-Minute Silence

I kid you not, the Washington Post in an article about Bush's actions on 9/11, actually refers to him as "the Nation's spiritual leader." Huh? Did I miss something? I thought the presidency was a secular office defined by the constitution, not some high church function:

But even the harshest critics concede that the nation's spiritual leader rallied in the days thereafter. His bullhorn performance on the rubble of the World Trade Center is considered a bravura moment. He made compelling appearances at the National Cathedral, before Congress, and in a news conference in the East Room of the White House. When professional baseball resumed play, he courageously walked to the mound in a crowded stadium and threw out the first pitch.

Wow! So is he also the nation's sports leader? Just think how much courage it took to throw that pitch. I'm awed. What a bunch of juvenile crap.

If more proof were needed that our press sucks, I can't imagine what it would be.

Bush vs the Truth About 9/11

News Analysis: Poor grades for White House on 9/11

According to Douglas Jehl of the New York Times, reported in the International Herald Tribune:

For most of 2002, President George W. Bush argued that a commission formed to look into the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks would only distract from the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
.
Now, in 17 preliminary staff reports, that panel has called into question nearly every aspect of the administration's response to terror, including the idea that Iraq and Al Qaeda were somehow the same foe.
.
Far from a bolt from the blue, the commission has demonstrated over the last 19 months, the Sept. 11 attacks were foreseen, at least in general terms, and might well have been prevented, had it not been for misjudgments, mistakes and glitches, some within the White House itself.

This article is worth reading in its entirity.

Bush vs Iraqi's Future

Mistakes Loom Large as Handover Nears

An article in today's Washington Post points out many of the things we have done wrong in Iraq over the last year while failing to mention the very worst mistake we made - going there in the first place.

Bush vs Ordinary Iraqis

In a followup to the previous post's mention of the U.S. airstrike credited with killing more than 20 Iraqis - including women and children - today, as expected, official military sources attempted to dispel any guilt or responsibility for the killings by insisting that they had "actionable intelligence" that the house destroyed was an insurgent "safe house" used by Abu Musab Zarqawi and his followers and that he was the target of the air attack.

Alas, "actionable intelligence" has become another of those nonsense phrases used by the house of Bush and its followers to both justify not doing something (because we didn't have actionable intelligence) and doing something because we did. But the phrase is merely a fig leaf. Intelligence is actionable when it is believed enough to be acted upon, therefore the phrase is largely a tautology. All it means is that whoever was in the position to take action believed certain intelligence was credible or not. Talking about "actionable intelligence" makes it sound like some objective category that everyone viewing it could agree on. In truth, what is deemed actionable by one person might just as easily be questioned by another.

So what we have here is faith based intelligence, "actionable" because those who act have faith that it is true. Unfortunately, as we have seen time and again, they seem to be repeatedly wrong and in spectacular ways. Just as the early heavy air strikes on Baghdad did not have the desired effect of killing Saddam - despite the actionable intelligence it was based on - the U.S. military continues to believe that it can use air strikes to deal with terrorist targets in densely populated areas - and not be concerned about the consequences to Iraq civilians. More troubling still is the weasily way our military spokesmen have attemtped to gloss over the horrible reality of dropping high explosives on defenseless people and pass it off as just the cost of doing business. On the bombings in question, Army Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the spokesman for U.S. military forces in Iraq, said:

"This was not an attack on the people of Fallujah, but against a known safe house," . . . "It is standard operating procedure to conduct a detailed collateral damage estimate prior to approval of this type of mission. The collateral damage estimate was within permissible limits, and this operation was within standing rules of engagement."

Well then, that makes it alright! We did an estimate of "colateral damage" and found it to be "within permissible limits." In other words, we determined in advance how many ordinary people - including women and children - we were willing to kill in order to also kill the one terrorist we were targeting. What we, the citizens whose tax dollars are paying for this travisty, are never told is what exactly are these standards that are used for doing colateral damage estimates? There must be some objective standards or else such an estimate couldn't be made. So, just how does the army brass - in its "wisdom" - determine how many people it is acceptable to kill to achive a particular end? Is there a cost/benefit sliderule that includes innocent human life in relation to mission objectives? I think we deserve to know. We are, after all, ultimately responsible for the actions of our government. Unlike Gen. Kimmitt, we have to take responsibility. We need to pull the plug on this ugliness while we still can.

SOB vs Bush

SOB hasn't posted anything in the last few days. He has been overwhelmed by the craziness of the real world and unable to comment. We have reached a point where intelligent political discourse is almost impossible. The language of the political sphere has been infected with virulent puss filled phrases such as "war on terror" that allow their users to construct arguments to justify actions of almost any kind. The horror of American torture in Iraqi prisons is justified because of this mythical "war."

Well, there is no "war on terror" (or, as it is sometimes known, "terrorism"). Terrorism is a tactic utilized by the disenfranchised to destabilize and confront those in power. As a tactic, it is not something one can make war on. Most of the groups who have used terrorism as a weapon have not targeted America and thus are of no interest to us. So, focusing on "terrorism" - rather than specific groups with specific grievances - prevents us from really focusing on what needs to be done. It leaves the public with a vague and pervasive sense of "threat" that cannot be meaningfully addressed - except symbolically in the "war" being televised where we are able to strike back at the "evil doers" with tanks, attack helicopters, fighter/bombers, and whatever other photogenic physical means are at our disposal. It makes for good theater for those who don't think, but it will NEVER reduce the threats we face, and in fact, will probably increase them.

For example, while our media fixate on the execution of a single American citizen taken hostage in Saudi Arabia, we routinely read that 'U.S. Air Strike in Fallujah Kills 20':

In a bloody surprise attack, the U.S. military launched precision weapons into a poor residential neighborhood of Fallujah on Saturday to destroy what officers described as a safe house used by fighters loyal to Abu Musab Zarqawi and perhaps, at times, by the fugitive terrorist leader himself.

Residents said about 20 people were killed, including women and children, despite a cease-fire with U.S. occupation forces that has brought relative peace for the last six weeks to the rebellious city 35 miles west of Baghdad. Images from the site of the blast showed two collapsed houses, with people in white robes picking through the rubble looking for buried victims and lost property.

"This leads to nothing but more confrontation with the enemy," Abdullah Janabi, head of Fallujah's Mujaheddin Council, declared in an interview with the al-Jazeera satellite television network.

So, we think it is really horrible that individual Americans are executed by political extremists, but it seems to be just par for the course when we murder numerous unknown and unnamed Iraqis whose only crime is being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And, as we have shown again and again, we won't even apologize. Rather, we will continue to make excuses and rationalizations for our aggressive and irrational behavior.

No wonder we are hated. As for the much talked about transfer of sovereignty - another poisonous phrase that simply covers a multitude of deceits, Professor Juan Cole says:

These people are not getting anything like full sovereignty. I think it is a publicity stunt - without substance. The real question for a lot of Iraqis is not so much if it's credible or not, but if it can accomplish anything for them. Since the Americans dissolved the Iraqi army, since it's not entirely clear how do you get an Iraqi army back, one can be pessimistic ...

Just one lie after another - exaggerated because they are repeated without comment by the press. America has become largely an uninformed populace repeating unintelligible slogans as a way of protecting itself from any guilt and responsibility for the ongoing wholesale thefts and murder in Iraq.

Welcome to the New World Order, Dubya style.

Diplomats vs Bush

Former diplomats call for Bush ouster

The anti-Bush cry is now being made even by professional diplomats and civil servants of both parties:

The Bush administration's foreign policy in Iraq and elsewhere has been a "disaster," and President Bush should not be re-elected, a group of former diplomats and military leaders say in a newly released statement.

The group, called Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, held a news conference Wednesday to explain why its members feel "the need for a major change in the direction of our foreign policy," and underscore that they believe their concerns are bipartisan.

A statement from the group notes its more than two dozen members include Democrats and Republicans who have "served every president since Harry S. Truman."

They contend Bush's foreign policy has failed at "preserving national security and providing world leadership."

Members expressing their opposition in the statement are former senior diplomatic, national security and military officials.

In opening remarks, spokeswoman Phyllis Oakley said international respect for the United States is now "crumbling under an administration blinded by ideology and a callous indifference to the realities of the world around it."

Oakley was an assistant secretary of state for intelligence and research in the Clinton administration.

Charles Freeman, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, said the Bush administration has yet to articulate how it plans to depart from Iraq, and said the situation is "complicated by insults to our allies, the indifference to the views of partners in the region, and the general disdain for the United Nations and international organizations that the administration still finds difficult to conceal."

Freeman, a career diplomat, served both Republican and Democratic administrations.

At a Wednesday news conference, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher rejected the notion the United States has acted without consulting its allies.

"It's not true. We went to the United Nations on Iraq. We went to the United Nations on terrorism and 9/11. We've had four unanimous U.N. resolutions since the end of the war," he responded.

Although the group expressed alarm about the sidetracked Middle East "road map to peace" between Palestinians and Israelis, it was the U.S. handling of Iraq that helped crystallize the group's concern.

Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, a former U.S. Air Force chief of staff who had endorsed the Bush 2000 campaign, Wednesday said of Bush's Iraq policy, "Because of the Pollyannish assumptions that were made by the administration in going in there that ... bouquets would be thrown at us and so forth, we were totally unprepared for the post-combat occupation. And so you see here, unfolding in front of us, a terrible disaster."

McPeak headed the Air Force during the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

The group acknowledged it takes a partisan stand in opposing Bush, but, as member William Harrop put it, "When there is one prominent rival to President Bush in this election, obviously we think Senator Kerry should be elected, but we are not here to speak for him. We are here to say there must be a change."

Amen.

9/11 Commission vs The Truth

Al Qaeda planned to hijack 10 planes

The 9/11 Commisson - a group made up of the wrong members, tasked with the wrong charge, interviewing the wrong people and asking the wrong questions, has now released a preliminary report that tells us stuff we didn't want to know - while deftly ignoring all the questions that beg for answers. Did you know that Al Qaeda originally wanted to hijack 10 planes? No? Neither did I. SO WHAT? That is not important. What is important is why no one made a reasonable response on 9/11, why the normal protocol for responding to potentially hijacked planes was not followed, why Bush did nothing even after realizing that the nation was under attack, why no general alarm was raised after it was realized that hijackings were in progress, why Saudis, including members of Osama bin Laden's family, were allowed to fly out of the country when no one else - including former Vice-President Gore and Secretary of State Colin Powell - were allowed to fly, why New Yorkers were assured the air around ground zero was safe to breathe when it was clearly toxic and dangerous, why buildings all around the twin towers burst into flame and collapsed (there were several of them and they are never mentioned) even though they had not been hit, why the steel and other physical evidence at ground zero was quickly carted away, sold as scrap, and never analyzed, why the government was sure the very next day who the hijackers were, why he government was immediately sure it was the work of bin Laden, - and on and on even to today. Why?

Daily News vs Bush

KERRY FOR PREZ: WHY HIM, WHY NOW - AND HOW TO PUT HIM IN THE WHITE HOUSE

AMAZING! The first newspaper endorsement of John Kerry comes from a basically conservative tabloid style paper in Philadelphia, The Philadelphia Daily News:

LAST WEEK, the nation looked to the past with the death of President Ronald Reagan.

This week, the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry, suspended out of respect to the deceased 40th president, start fresh.

In that spirit, this newspaper, the first in the nation, endorses John Kerry for president. Unlike the current White House occupant, Kerry can lead America to a brighter, better future. He has shown the personal courage, compassion, intellect and skill to lead this country in a time of war abroad and economic troubles at home. He is a serious man for a serious time.

It's hard to exaggerate how important this endorsement is, coming as it does from a media source much closer in sympathy to Fox News than to any liberal, or even centrist, publication. Is it that clear that the handwriting is on the wall?

This piece concludes with an appeal to readers to take action, including specific instructions about registering to vote and websites with additional information. This is not just an expression of opionion - it is a call to action. It ends:

Act now.

The commonwealth - indeed the nation - cannot afford another four years of George Bush.

Clear enough.

Bush Regime vs Common Decency

It just keeps getting worse and worse

Just when you thought the whole prison abuse/torture thing couldn't get any worse there is this:

A key investigator in the espionage case against a Syrian-American translator at the U.S. Naval base in Guantanamo has been charged with raping and sodomizing children, officials said on Tuesday.
. . .
Military officials later gave reporters a list of charges against Palmosina which include rape of a person under the age of 12 in Japan in 1998 and 2000 and sodomy with a child under the age of 12 in Vacaville, California.

And do I have to ask the obvious question - why is this person still in the service and not in jail?

Reagan Family vs Bush

Reaganite by Association? His Family Won't Allow It

WASHINGTON, June 14 - As Republicans try to cloak President Bush in the mantle of Ronald Reagan, their biggest obstacle may be Mr. Reagan's own family.

Even before Mr. Reagan died, Nancy Reagan and her daughter, Patti Davis, made their opposition to Mr. Bush's policy on stem-cell research well known. But on Friday, at the culmination of an emotional week of mourning for the former president, his son Ron Reagan delivered a eulogy that castigated politicians who use religion "to gain political advantage," a comment that was being interpreted in Washington as a not-so-subtle slap at Mr. Bush.

The remark has provoked intense debate among Republicans about precisely what the younger Mr. Reagan meant. Some saw the reference to religion as a message to the administration on stem-cell research. Others saw it as a possible critique of the war in Iraq. Still others insist there was no deeper message at all.

But a friend of the Reagan family, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Mr. Reagan, who did not return a call seeking comment on Monday, was deeply uncomfortable with the way the Bush administration intertwined religion and politics and felt compelled to say so at the burial of his father, a ceremony watched by millions.

"I think he was making a more profound statement about style," this friend said, "and the danger of religion in politics."

Bush Attorney General vs the Constitution

Travesty of Justice


Paul Krugman's column in the New York Times paints a bleak picture of our born again chief lawman John Ashcroft:

No question: John Ashcroft is the worst attorney general in history.

For this column, let's just focus on Mr. Ashcroft's role in the fight against terror. Before 9/11 he was aggressively uninterested in the terrorist threat. He didn't even mention counterterrorism in a May 2001 memo outlining strategic priorities for the Justice Department. When the 9/11 commission asked him why, he responded by blaming the Clinton administration, with a personal attack on one of the commission members thrown in for good measure.

Whenever I think of how good it will be to get rid of Dubya I have to remember all the other sick assholes in this administration we will sweep away as well. Now if we can just prosecute these evil creeps there would be some real justice.

Bush vs Iraqi sovereignty

A New Tug of War in Iraq

In the latest in a continuing series of surprises from our very ungrateful appointed set of tame Iraqi "leaders", interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi said in an interview on the al-Jazeera satellite television network that Iraqi officials expected to take custody of Hussein and all other detainees with the transfer of power.

"All the detainees will be transferred to the Iraqi authorities, and the transporting operation will be done within the two coming weeks," Allawi said on the Arabic-language network. "Saddam and the others will be delivered to the Iraqis."

He said the former Iraqi president would stand trial "as soon as possible," but gave no specific timetable. The detainees and "Saddam as well will be handed to the Iraqi government, and you can consider this as an official confirmation," he said.

This seems to have been a surprise to the U.S. After all, just because we are returning "sovereignty" to the Iraqis doesn't mean they get to make any real decisions that we don't approve.

U.S. officials have said they plan to continue to hold up to 5,000 prisoners deemed a threat to U.S.-led forces even after administrative powers are handed over at the end of this month.

Bush and company are all for "freedom" - just as long as it is their own. After all, a 5000 year old civilization can't be trusted to make its own decisions.

George Bush as Anti-Christ

Pope Fears Bush is AntiChrist

According to freelance journalist Wayne Madsden, "George W Bush's blood lust, his repeated commitment to Christian beliefs and his constant references to 'evil doers,' in the eyes of many devout Catholic leaders, bear all the hallmarks of the one warned about in the Book of Revelations--the anti-Christ."

Madsen, a Washington-based writer and columnist, who often writes for Counterpunch, says that people close to the pope claim that amid these concerns, the pontiff wishes he was younger and in better health to confront the possibility that Bush may represent the person prophesized in Revelations. John Paul II has always believed the world was on the precipice of the final confrontation between Good and Evil as foretold in the New Testament.

Before he became pope, Karol Cardinal Wojtyla said, "We are now standing in the face of the greatest historical confrontation humanity has gone through. I do not think that wide circles of the American society or wide circles of the Christian community realize this fully. We are now facing the final confrontation between the church and the anti-Church, of the Gospel versus the anti-Gospel."

The pope worked tirelessly to convince leaders of nations on the UN Security Council to oppose Bush's war resolution on Iraq. Vatican sources claim they had not seen the pope more animated and determined since he fell ill to Parkinson's Disease. In the end, the pope did convince the leaders of Mexico, Chile, Cameroon and Guinea to oppose the U.S. resolution.

Reagan Paves the Way for Bush in Iraq

Iraqi General: US Helped Us as We Used Chemical Weapons

To return to a theme we have pushed before, the current world situation - including the mess in Iraq - can be traced to the policies of the Reagan administration which have been ignored during all the misplaced praise that was heaped upon the late president last week:

The Iraq issue today may never have arisen if it were not for the support former U.S. president Ronald Reagan gave Saddam Hussein.

Reagan died Saturday June 5 in his Los Angeles home.

Reagan's two terms as President correspond roughly to the Iran-Iraq war, the longest conventional war of the 20th century.

Among the other terrible things we have to be sorry for in this affair is that our government, under the guiding hand of Ronald Reagan, provided Saddam with chemical and biological precurors for the weapons he used against Iran. At the same time he was providing Iran with weapons to be used against the Iraqis.

More than a million people died. Uncountable wounded. No one won; everyone lost. Nothing was decided. Reagan was buried as a hero, and we really wonder why Iraqis hate us. Pathetic.

George W. Bush is a Sick Puppy

Bush On the Couch : Inside the Mind of the President

While I have limited tolerance for psychoanalysis - especially the kind of psychoanalysis that is engaged in by the CIA where world leaders are analyzed based on their biography, writings and speeches - I have to admit that I really enjoyed this particular exercise. Much that is presented seemed right on the money. Since it confirms much that I have previously thought, how could I not like it? Dr. Justin Frank of George Washington University does an admirable job in trying to make sense of the various oddities of President George W. Bush's behavior; such as:

Bush's false sense of omnipotence, instilled within him during childhood and emboldened by his deep investment in fundamentalist religion

The president's history of untreated alcohol abuse, and the questions it raises about denial, impairment, and the enabling streak in our culture

The growing anecdotal evidence that Bush may suffer from dyslexia, ADHD, and other thought disorders

His comfort living outside the law, defying international law in his presidency as boldly as he once defied DUI statutes and military reporting requirements

His love-hate relationship with his father, and how it triggered a complex and dangerous mix of feelings including yearning, rivalry, anger, and sadism

Bush's rigid and simplistic thought patterns, paranoia, and megalomania -- and how they have driven him to invent adversaries so that he can destroy them.

More than anything else, this book confirms my strong suspicion that we need to get rid of this guy as soon as possible. As my Momma would say - "He's just not right."

Bush Friends vs Americans

American killed in Saudi shooting

And just as things are getting better in Iraq, there is no cause for alarm about the stability of our "good ally" Saudi Arabia, despite this:

The U.S. Embassy in Saudi Arabia confirmed that a man shot dead on Saturday in a drive-by shooting in Riyadh was a U.S. citizen.

This is the third confirmed shooting death of an Westerner this week in Riyadh: An American was killed Tuesday and a cameraman for the British TV network BBC was killed Sunday.

When will the Bush administration face the reality of our situation here? This is all about to blow up in our faces.

Iraq's Rocky Road to Self-government

Iraqi deputy foreign minister assassinated

Another in the "things are getting better in Iraq": series:

An Iraqi deputy foreign minister was gunned down in an ambush Saturday morning in front of his home in Baghdad, witnesses and government sources said.

Bassam Salih Kubba, 60, had worked in the Foreign Ministry for more than 30 years, holding important posts under the previous regime. He was one of four deputy foreign ministers and the ministry's most-senior career diplomat.

Does anyone have a real clue as to what is going on in this country? What the hell are the Bushies able to do about stuff like this? Anything?

Bush vs Detainees Lives

Abuse scandal likely to become wide-ranging investigation

Remember a month ago when we were told that seven or eight homicides of detainees were being investigated? Then it swelled to 37 towared the end of May? That was shocking to many, but now we have this:

Since that time, however, the Army has announced that it is investigating the deaths of 127 prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, and evidence compiled by military and congressional investigators indicates that top civilian and military leaders dispensed contradictory advice on how far to push the bounds of laws against torture and whether certain detainees were covered by international treaties.

A month ago I thought we had seen most of the "growth" possible with this story but it continues to surprise daily. The depth of this ugliness passes all belief.

Chomsky vs Bush

Bush Resurrects the Worst of the Reagan Team

In an interview on Democracy Now, Amy Goodman questions Noam Chomsky:

AMY GOODMAN: Noam Chomsky, can you talk about this, the people that are now running the administration are some of the very people who ran the Reagan administration more than 20 years ago?


NOAM CHOMSKY: That's quite true. The Reagan administration is either the same people or their immediate mentors for the most part. I think one can say that the current administration is a selection of the more extremist and arrogant and violent and dangerous elements of the Reagan administration. So on things like - I mean, that is true on domestic and international policy they are, both in the Reagan years and now, they are committed to dismantling the components of the government that serve the general population -- social security, public schools and so on and so forth, but in a more extreme fashion now. Partly because they think they have achieved a sort of higher stage from which to launch the attack, and internationally it's pretty obvious. In fact, many of the older Reaganites and Bush, number one people have been concerned, even appalled by the extremism of the current administration in the international domain. That's why there was unprecedented elite criticism of the national security strategy and the implementation in Iraq - narrow criticism, but significant.

Read the entire interview here.

Conservatives vs Bush

Republicans Upset Over Bush Plan to Use Reagan Images, Speeches in Campaign Ads


Capitol Hill Blue staff writer Teresa Hampton reports on tension within the Republican party over plans to use Reagan's death for Bush's political advantage:

As the nation prepares to bury former President Ronald Reagan, Republican insiders fight among themselves over plans by the political team of President George W. Bush to use images of and speeches by Reagan in new television ads aimed at jump-starting a faltering campaign.

“They’re disgusting,” says one long-time Republican who participated in a focus group to preview the new television ads. “They dishonor the memory of Ronald Reagan and if President Bush allows these ads on the air I, for one, will not vote for him in November.”

The ads, ordered up by Bush political advisor Karl Rove immediately after Reagan’s death last Saturday, use images of Reagan and excerpts from his speeches in what one angry GOP conservative describes as a “callous attempt to tie George W. Bush to the legacy of Ronald Wilson Reagan.”

And I thought it was only the liberal Democrats who ate their young.

Bush vs the Rule of Law

Are these people really lawyers?

The Decembrist has a post that sums up much that I felt after reading the available parts of the various "torture memos" compiled to justify our use of force to compel testimony from internees in Afghanistan and Iraq:

What struck me about the reports today and yesterday on memos from the Justice Department and the Defense Department arguing that U.S. prohibitions on torture might not apply to the treatment of prisoners in Iraq or Guantanamo was not so much their moral implications -- I'm beyond the capacity for shock -- but their glib, loose, bull-session tone. The memo from the Office of Legal Counsel is not available, and if Ashcroft has his way, it won't be, but based on the quotes in the Times and the Post, it just doesn't sound remotely like an actual legal argument, much less "a scholarly effort to define the perimeters of the law." It seems to be just a series of assertions, such as, "in order to respect the President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable."
. . .
The lawyers at the Office of Legal Counsel and the White House councile's office are the best the Federalist Society has to offer. They've gone to the best law schools, clerked for Thomas or Scalia -- they can be expected to put together an argument that, even if wrong, at least appears to be grounded in a well-researched analysis of the law and precedents. Instead, these memos read like, at best, a bunch of drunk right-wing freshmen arguing about what they think the law should be.

And the real question to be asked about these memos is - why were they written, especially when they were written? It is as if the Bush administration had decided in advance that torture was going to be standard operating procedure and therefore it needed to cover its ass just in case some overly conscientious person decided to blow the whistle.

Reagan Rides Off Into the Sunset

Gone but Unfortunately Not Forgotten

Earlier this morning SOB walked down the street to stand in the rain on Independence Avenue SE with several thousand other demented voyeurs for a final view of the late "Great Communicator." It was curious to see the presidential "Death Car" - the black van full of Secret Service with a roof video camera trained on the car following it - this time Reagan's hearse with Nancy's limo trailing, rather than the presidential limo. No clue as to who the VIPs were in the many limos with darkened windows that followed in its wake, but the crowd of soaking wet tourists were thrilled.

As for me, I couldn't get past all the lies that are being broadcast to make this second rate hack seem like a great man. We must really desperately need to fool ourselves about reality to grasp at this nonsense. In this morning's New York Times, for example, Reagan's former National Security Advisor, William P. Clark, has an op-ed piece entitled "For Reagan, All Life Was Sacred." This is, of course, a very great lie but it is not considered good manners to say so. The title is only true if one is talking, as is Clark, about "unborn human life." Once one begins to talk about actual moving and breathing people, the issue becomes much less certain.

According to Reagan, "My administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land," he said in 1983. "And there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning."

Yet when it came to people who differed from him - in skin color, in religion, in political beliefs, in language, and in culture - he was able to employ a kind of mental judo to make it ok to - if not kill them directly, help others to kill them. Reagan was great at proxy homicide:

(1) arming both sides in the Iran/Iraq war that killed over a million people,
(2) supporting - through totally illegal means and against the wishes of congress - the Contras and their related death squads and paramilitary forces that killed tens of thousands of peasants, priests, academics, labor organizers, and anyone else who dared to work for social justice in the poor countries of Central America, and
(3) arming and training the Islamic militants of the Mujahadeen who fought the Soviets in Afghanistan and later metamorphosed into the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

That's right, we have to keep reminding ourselves that it was "Ronnie" and his misbegotton policies that gave us Osama bin Laden and company. So for perspective, ask yourself, what deadly scourge of the future is being formed right this minute by George W. Bush's "war on terror"? If Dubya is, indeed, the rightful heir to Reagan's policies, our children - and theirs - are likely to face something much worse than 9/11.

And of course Bush, like Ronnie, is very keen on the "sanctity of life" - as long as it is unborn. After that all bets are off.

Bush VP vs Business Ethics

Halliburton Under Investigation for Nigeria Bribery Accusations

In a continuation of the "few bad apples" story that Dubya likes to tell to dismiss the massive business scandals that have plagued his administration, his own VP takes some more heat over Halliburton:

The Securities and Exchange Commission is formally investigating allegations that a Halliburton Co. subsidiary was involved in paying $180 million in bribes to get a natural gas project contract in Nigeria. Vice President Dick Cheney was head of the oil services conglomerate at the time.

Halliburton on Friday announced that the SEC has started a formal probe. The SEC's informal investigation of the contract was disclosed in February.

The SEC isn't alone in examining the contract, in which Halliburton subsidiary KBR, formerly known as Kellogg, Brown & Root, is a 25 percent owner. Nigeria in February ordered an investigation, and a French magistrate has been probing the payments for months.

So, is Cheney another "bad apple" or just the disgusting worm he appears to be?

A Preview of the Future Bush is Creating for Iraq?

Rival Shiite groups fight in Najaf

In the ongoing story of how much better things are in Iraq:

Brawling and gunfire involving a militia loyal to a radical cleric flared Friday in the south-central Iraqi city of Najaf and a Baghdad neighborhood.

Supporters of Muqtada al-Sadr and members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq scuffled at the Imam Ali Shrine in Najaf, leading to casualties and the cancellation of Friday prayers.

Having been assured by the wise men of the Bush neocon Dept of Oracles that there was no chance of civil war in Iraq, we not only have various Shitte groups fighting one another for power, we also have the Kurds threatening to take their toys and go home if we don't guarantee them some form of independence or protection from the Arab majority. It ain't a pretty picture and it just seems to be getting worse. I think one of the reasons Bush is having trouble keeping his support numbers up is that he is increasingly seen as having no plan to deal with this and, worse, denying the evidence by continuing to claim that everything is getting better.

More Bush Aministration BS on Terrorism Report

George Orwell Would Have Loved This

As we have noted previously, the much touted State Department report of world-wide terrorist activity released in April of this year proclaimed that terrorism had decreased in 2003 when, in fact, the number of events and the number of victims had dramatically increased. In today's New York Times various members of the Bush administration, strongly denying that any political agenda was behind the misleading report, try to explain how this black-is-white inversion could have happened:

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said Thursday that the errors were partly the result of new procedures for collecting data. "I can assure you it had nothing to do with putting out anything but the most honest, accurate information we can," Mr. Powell said said.

"Errors crept in that, frankly, we did not catch here," he said of the report, which showed a decline in the number of attacks worldwide in 2003.

Now ask yourself, how might these errors have "crept in"? Is Powell suggesting that erroneous information - such as the bad intelligence he reported to the UN as true about Iraq's WMDs - has a mind of its own and can just impose itself on otherwise honest analysts? This is nonsense. Errors don't creep into reports, they are either included through careless incompetence or put there for a reason. Consider, in further obfuscation of the truth, State Department spokesman Richard A. Boucher, replying to Congressman Henry Waxman's demand for an explanation of the false information said:

"When we are sure we have the new facts, the right facts, we will prepare an appropriate analysis and give you our assessment at that moment,"

The right facts? As opposed to the wrong facts? What does that mean? What is a "fact" to this administration? Of course, maybe they are just honoring the late president Reagan, who believed that "Facts are stupid things." George Orwell, are you listening?

More Pop Stars vs Bush

Morrissey wishes Bush dead, not Reagan


It isn't just The Boss and Natalie Portman who have ill feelings about our faux presnit. Morrissey, former frontman for The Smiths, now on a solo world tour, has just caused a storm of controversy by the way he announced the death of former president Reagan to an audience during a recent show:

The Manchester Evening News said yesterday it received a record number of hits after reporting on its Web site that Morrissey, 45, had interrupted a Dublin concert Saturday with news of former president Reagan's death, adding that he wished Bush had died instead.

According to the original report in the Manchester Evening News:

MANCHESTER music legend Morrissey sparked controversy when he announced Ronald Reagan's death live on stage during a concert - and then declared he wished it was George Bush who had died instead.

Thousands of fans at Dublin Castle, in Ireland, cheered when the ex-Smiths frontman made the announcement that the former American president, who had battled with Alzheimer's Disease, had passed away.

And an even bigger cheer followed when Morrissey - who is no stranger to controversy - then said he wished it had been the current President, George W Bush, who had died.

For some homegrown rocker protest against Bush, check out Rock the Vote.

The Boss vs Bush

Springsteen Posts Gore's Anti-Bush Text

NEW YORK (Billboard) - Although open with his political opinions on stage, Bruce Springsteen generally shies away from such issues when not on the road and in the public eye.

The artist has broken from that tradition by posting the full text of a speech former Vice President Al Gore gave late last month during a MoveOn.org-sponsored appearance at New York University in the "news" section of his official Web site (http://brucespringsteen.net).

Springsteen, whose staunchly anti-war stance is well known to fans, calls Gore's remarks "one of the most important speeches I've heard in a long time. The issues it raises need to be considered by every American concerned with the direction our country is headed in. It's my pleasure to reprint it here for my fans"

At a time when most opposed to the George W. Bush White House have backed off rhetoric in the wake of former president Ronald Reagan's death, the site gives Gore's anti-Bush criticisms a new forum. As a result, it has sparked a firestorm of conversation in Springsteen discussion groups on the official site and elsewhere on the Net.

Only once in recent memory has Springsteen used his site in a political manner. In April 2003, he publicly supported the Dixie Chicks while the group was suffering a backlash following singer Natalie Maines' remarks distancing the Texas trio's lineage from Bush, the state's former governor, during a London concert appearance.

"Right now, we are supposedly fighting to create freedom in Iraq, at the same time that some are trying to intimidate and punish people for using that same freedom here at home," Springsteen lamented at the time.

Aside from a few private benefit performances, Springsteen has been quiet since ending his world tour with the E Street Band in support of his 2002 Columbia album "The Rising." Although rumors of new studio work have yielded little concrete information, there is a possibility that the Boss may make a loud statement when the Republican National Convention gets underway in New York at the end of the summer.

The New York Daily News reported in May that Springsteen may play a free concert somewhere in the city on Sept. 2, the day Bush is due to address the convention and accept the Republican nomination for a second term as President. A representative for the Springsteen disavowed knowledge of any performance plans in 2004.

Bush vs Our Safety

U.S. Will Revise Data on Terror

We have all seen how often Bush claims to be acting in the interests of making everyone safe, and members of his administration continue to claim, despite evidence to the contrary, that the invasion of Iraq has somehow made the world a safer place. But the facts just don't support that belief:

The State Department is scrambling to revise its annual report on global terrorism to acknowledge that it understated the number of deadly attacks in 2003, amid charges that the document is inaccurate and was politically manipulated by the Bush administration.

When the most recent "Patterns of Global Terrorism" report was issued April 29, senior Bush administration officials immediately hailed it as objective proof that they were winning the war on terrorism. The report is considered the authoritative yardstick of the prevalence of terrorist activity around the world.

"Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight" against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report.

But on Tuesday, State Department officials said they underreported the number of terrorist attacks in the tally for 2003, and added that they expected to release an updated version soon.

Several U.S. officials and terrorism experts familiar with that revision effort said the new report will show that the number of significant terrorist incidents increased last year, perhaps to its highest level in 20 years.

So, from showing a decrease in terrorist attacks to showing the highest level in 20 years is quite a change. Apart from being surprised that the Bushies are owning up to this attempt to mislead the public one has to ask how many other reports are out there with fudged numbers trying to make bad policy look good?

Reagan Funeral BS - An Antidote

No Praise for Reagan


Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive, has this to say about the Reagan idiocy afflicting us now:

Spare me the heapings of praise for Ronald Reagan.

He was one of the worst presidents we've ever had.

In fact, he should have been impeached for the Iran-Contra scandal, and he might have been had Congress and the media just done their jobs. Reagan misappropriated funds, and then he lied about it. He traded with Iran, an enemy of the United States, and he lied about that, too.

But Congress went weak in the knees when Ollie North showed up strutting in his uniform.

And the media fell down, too. Katherine Graham, owner of The Washington Post, said the country couldn't handle another impeachment crisis, and so the Post downplayed it.

Let's be clear on Reagan's record.

Reagan was responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent people in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Honduras as he waged illegal wars and funded brutal militaries. The truth commission of El Salvador investigated the murders of 75,000 people during the civil war in the 1980s, and it found that the Salvadoran military, or death squads connected to the military, had committed the bulk of those crimes. At the time, Bush was lavishing hundreds of millions of dollars on the Salvadoran government, and his CIA was working with the death squads.

Reagan was responsible, as Christopher Hitchens has noted, for approving Israel's invasion of Lebanon, which killed about 18,000 civilians.

Reagan was responsible for his own unilateral invasion of that huge threat to the United States called Grenada. (Oh, the great liberator!)

Reagan was responsible for inciting a racist backlash. He kicked off his 1980 presidential campaign in--of all places--Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, and James Cheney were murdered in 1964. Reagan also fueled racism with his stories about "welfare queens" and his defense of the apartheid regime of South Africa.

Reagan was responsible for attacking women's rights, as he tried to legitimate the backlash against feminism. He appointed the far right justice Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court, and he loaded the lower court benches with anti-choice ideologues.

Reagan was responsible for a woeful response to the AIDS epidemic, which needlessly jeopardized the lives of millions of people. He also consorted with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who called AIDS divine revenge on homosexuals.

Reagan was responsible for shredding the social contract between labor and management, and he declared open season on trade unions when he fired the air traffic controllers.

Reagan was responsible for flattening out the progressive income tax and for giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and to corporations. His economic policies, as Mark Weisbrot of the Center for Economic Policy and Research has noted, dramatically redistributed income--to the rich.

Reagan was responsible for hooking millions of people overseas on tobacco, as he turned the Commerce Department into the advance team for Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds.

Reagan ("We begin bombing in five minutes") was responsible for the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that goes by the name of missile defense.

Reagan was responsible for launching an assault on our environment (remember James Watt!) that is now reaching its apotheosis under George W.

In a way, Reagan was W's father. The macho swagger, the studied anti-intellectualism, the infatuation with military spending, and the overriding concern for corporations and the rich--all these Bush has inherited from Reagan.

And while Reagan consulted Nancy's astrologer for advice, Bush does him one better by consulting the Lord Himself.

The only difference is that Reagan knew how to read his lines.

Amnesty International vs Bush

Bankrupt and Bereft

According to The Nation online, Amnesty International has a very low opinion of our approach to human rights:

For those who argued that Bush's reckless use of military violence was defensible to protect human rights comes a rebuke in Amnesty International's cover letter to its 2004 annual report: "The global security agenda promulgated by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad and using preemptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty."

Bush vs the Law

Ashcroft demonstrates contempt for Congress and common decency

In an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft displayed a level or arrogant superiority that characterizes everything that is wrong with the Bush administration. In questioning about what legal advice Bush was given regarding torture - that it was OK in certain circumstances and that the president could prevent torturers from being prosecuted by declaring such behavior OK - Ashcroft refused to turn over the legal recommendations that were written in 2002.

For those who have been puzzled by Bush's behavior when he seemed to ignore legal limits the explanation is clear; he doesn't believe any legal limits apply to him. And his legal advisors have been busy justifying that belief. And since the Republicans, during Clinton's term of office, frequently reminded us that the president is not above the law, that must mean that Bush is not really president - he is King.

Death of a Salesman

Conservatives love to make fun of liberal "elites" and this long piece in The Village Voice is a good example of why - it manages to tell the truth about Ronald Reagan's "legacy" with both accuracy and humor. The same kind of denial of reality that allows people to claim that Bush is a "compassionate conservative" made it possible for Reagan to totally ignore reality and be applauded for it:

A noted fantasist, Reagan is perhaps best remembered for the eight years he spent believing he ruled an entirely fictional United States. To the old trouper's delight, this was a delusion shared by most of his compatriots, which is why his imaginary nation still subsumes ours to this day.
. . .
Ronald Reagan is the man who destroyed America's sense of reality—a paltry target, all in all, given our predilections. It only took an actor: the real successor to John Wilkes Booth. In our bones, we had always been this sort of bullshit-craving country anyhow, founded on abstractions. . .it was Reagan, whose most profound Freudian slip was the immortal "Facts are stupid things," who beguiled us into living in the theme park full-time.

Bush worshipers love to claim that Dubya is following in Reagan's footsteps, and indeed that is true, especially in the art of substituting fantasy for reality. The sad thing is that the public seems willing to accept a simple, happy myth over a complex, difficult reality.

In the final analysis, the worst aspect of Reagan's legacy was convincing much of the public that "government is not the solution to problems; government IS the problem." That is really the end of democracy. Face it, how can one have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" when "government" has been redefined as "the problem"? That means the people - acting in their own best interests - are the problem. And the solution? Free enterprise; profit over people. One will look in vain for anything in the Constitution that even hints at this.

Bush Supporters Redefine Christianity

Praise the Lord and Pass the Thumbscrews

We have seem much evidence of religious crazies, many actually in the Bush administration, who support his questionable policies, but this is really unbelievable:

It's been pointed out to me (tip of the hat to Bernard H.) that the team of lawyers who wrote the Pentagon's treatise on presidential torture powers was led by this woman:

U.S. Air Force's General Counsel, Mary L. Walker, discusses what it takes to leave a legacy of significance
Ms. Walker, it turns out, is a long-time Republican political appointee first brought to Washington during the Reagan administration to help oversee the looting of America's natural resources, um, that is, I mean, to serve as principal deputy in the environmental division at Ed Meese's Justice Department.

It also appears that Ms. Walker is a devout Christian - much like her fellow Reagan alum and environmental despoiler, Interior Secretary James "I don't know how many generations we've got until the Lord returns" Watt. And she's the co-founder of a San Diego group called Professional Women's Fellowship, an offshoot of the Campus Crusade for Christ "dedicated to helping professionals find balance, focus and direction in life."

God knows, we all need balance, focus and direction in our lives - and I'd be the last person to criticize Ms. Walker for looking for it in Jesus. As a devoted follower of John Lennon (bigger than Christ, but we won't dwell on that) I'm a firm believer in whatever gets you through the night. It's all right. It's all right.

But knowing what we now know about the subject matter of the Pentagon report, and the legal theories expounded therein, I do have to wonder how seriously Ms. Walker takes her Golden Rule.

At the very least, the report lends a curious overtone to some of the comments in this interview with Walker, which was published on the PWF web site:

Walker: "I wanted to be involved in policy development at the highest level, and lawyers in our society are often involved in shaping policy."
The report: After defining torture and other prohibited acts, the memo presents "legal doctrines ... that could render specific conduct, otherwise criminal, not unlawful."

Walker: "I can't divorce faith from success because God is the foundation for my life."

The report: "Good faith may be a complete defense" to a torture charge."

Walker: "My relationship with God and with others in the community of faith has been central in my life."

The report: "The infliction of pain or suffering per se, whether it is physical or mental, is insufficient to amount to torture." It "must be of such a high level of intensity that the pain is difficult for the subject to endure."

Walker:"It helped to find someone who could mentor me and help me see my faith as relevant to the challenges of life and work."

The report:For involuntarily administered drugs or other psychological methods [to be considered torture], the "acts must penetrate to the core of an individual's ability to perceive the world around him."

Walker: "When God is the center of your life and everything you do revolves around His plans for you and the world, then that is when life really gets exciting."

The report:The executive branch [has] "sweeping" powers to act as it sees fit because "national security decisions require the unity in purpose and energy in action that characterize the presidency rather than Congress."

Walker: It's a travesty to be in a place of strategic importance to the world as a business or political leader and not allow God to accomplish the truly significant through you.

The report: To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

And of course, I saved the best for last:

Walker: "Making moral decisions in the workplace where it is easy to go along and get along takes courage. It takes moral strength and courage to say, 'I'm not going to do this because I don't think it's the right thing to do.' "

The report: Officials could escape torture convictions by arguing that they were following superior orders, since such orders "may be inferred to be lawful" and are "disobeyed at the peril of the subordinate."

And so there you have it: Mary L. Walker - Christian, Republican, Patriot, Torture Attorney.

I know my personal military hero, Gen. J.C. Christian, Patriot, is already married. But if he ever feels like emulating the prophets of old and taking unto him a concubine, as Abraham knew Hagar, I think this just might be the girl for him.

Reagan as Preview of Bush Cruelty

Reagan and the AIDS Epidemic

Those who insist on thinking of the late Ronald Reagan as a "good" as well as great man should remember his refusal to deal with a health problem that was afflicting thousands of Americans during his time in office:

Throughout all of this Ronald Reagan did nothing. When Rock Hudson, a friend and colleague of the Reagan’s, was diagnosed and died in 1985 (one of the 20,740 cases reported that year), Reagan still did not speak out. When family friend William F. Buckley, in a March 18, 1986 New York Times article, called for mandatory testing of HIV and said that HIV+ gay men should have this information forcibly tattooed on their buttocks (and IV drug users on their arms), Reagan said nothing. In 1986 (after five years of complete silence) when Surgeon General C. Everett Koop released a report calling for AIDS education in schools, Bennett and Bauer did everything possible to undercut and prevent funding for Koop’s too-little too-late initiative. By the end of 1986, 37,061 AIDS cases had been reported; 16,301 people had died.

The most memorable Reagan AIDS moment was at the 1986 centenary rededication of the Statue of Liberty. The Reagan’s were there sitting next to the French Prime Minister and his wife, Francois and Danielle Mitterrand. Bob Hope was on stage entertaining the all-star audience. In the middle of a series of one-liners, Hope quipped, “I just heard that the Statue of Liberty has AIDS, but she doesn’t know if she got it from the mouth of the Hudson or the Staten Island Fairy.” As the television camera panned the audience, the Mitterrands looked appalled. The Reagans were laughing. By the end of 1989, 115,786 women and men had been diagnosed with AIDS in the United States—more then 70,000 of them had died.

After absorbing the implications of this perhaps we can consider the tens of thousansds of ordinary people who were murdered in Central America as part of Reagan's secretive, illegal war against the Sandinistas - our first "War on Terror," the invasion of Grenada (justified by exaggerated and distorted intelligence claims that proved to be untrue), the support of Saddam Husseim, supplying him with chemical and biological substances to use as weapons against the Iranians, and the irrational military buildup that resulted in the greatest increase in debt in U.S. history and a "star wars" progam to nowhere. Everywhere one looks behind the bland facade of this man's administration is death and suffering, caused or justified by money interests - the true beginning of the Republican worship of profit over people.

Bush vs His Own Best Interests

Bush's Erratic Behavior Worries White House Aides

President George W. Bush’s increasingly erratic behavior and wide mood swings has the halls of the West Wing buzzing lately as aides privately express growing concern over their leader’s state of mind.
In meetings with top aides and administration officials, the President goes from quoting the Bible in one breath to obscene tantrums against the media, Democrats and others that he classifies as “enemies of the state.”

Worried White House aides paint a portrait of a man on the edge, increasingly wary of those who disagree with him and paranoid of a public that no longer trusts his policies in Iraq or at home.
. . .
“The Attorney General is tight with the President because of religion,” says one aide. “They both believe any action is justifiable in the name of God.”

But the President who says he rules at the behest of God can also tongue-lash those he perceives as disloyal, calling them “fucking assholes” in front of other staff, berating one cabinet official in front of others and labeling anyone who disagrees with him “unpatriotic” or “anti-American.”

“The mood here is that we’re under siege, there’s no doubt about it,” says one troubled aide who admits he is looking for work elsewhere. “In this administration, you don’t have to wear a turban or speak Farsi to be an enemy of the United States. All you have to do is disagree with the President.”

On the Death of Ronald Reagan

66 Things to Think About When Flying Into Reagan National Airport

Since we will have to listen to days of blather about "the great communicator" it is well to remember that Reagan was essentially an empty suit propped up by business and political interests for whom he was a pleasant front. To help you remember what he was really all about, David Corn presents 66 reminders:

The firing of the air traffic controllers, winnable nuclear war, recallable nuclear missiles, trees that cause pollution, Elliott Abrams lying to Congress, ketchup as a vegetable, colluding with Guatemalan thugs, pardons for F.B.I. lawbreakers, voodoo economics, budget deficits, toasts to Ferdinand Marcos, public housing cutbacks, redbaiting the nuclear freeze movement, James Watt.

Getting cozy with Argentine fascist generals, tax credits for segregated schools, disinformation campaigns, Â?homeless by choice,Â? Manuel Noriega, falling wages, the HUD scandal, air raids on Libya, Â?constructive engagementÂ? with apartheid South Africa, United States Information Agency blacklists of liberal speakers, attacks on OSHA and workplace safety, the invasion of Grenada, assassination manuals, NancyÂ?s astrologer.

Drug tests, lie detector tests, Fawn Hall, female appointees (8 percent), mining harbors, the S&L scandal, 239 dead U.S. troops in Beirut, Al Haig Â?in control,Â? silence on AIDS, food-stamp reductions, Debategate, White House shredding, Jonas Savimbi, tax cuts for the rich, Â?mistakes were made.Â?

Michael DeaverÂ?s conviction for influence peddling, Lyn NofzigerÂ?s conviction for influence peddling, Caspar WeinbergerÂ?s five-count indictment, Ed Meese ("You donÂ?t have many suspects who are innocent of a crime"), Donald Regan (women donÂ?t Â?understand throw-weights"), education cuts, massacres in El Salvador.
Â?The bombing begins in five minutes,Â? $640 Pentagon toilet seats, African- American judicial appointees (1.9 percent), ReaderÂ?s Digest, C.I.A.-sponsored car-bombing in Lebanon (more than eighty civilians killed), 200 officials accused of wrongdoing, William Casey, Iran/contra.

Â?Facts are stupid things,Â? three-by-five cards, the MX missile, Bitburg, S.D.I., Robert Bork, naps, Teflon.

For those who don't automatically know what some of these refer to, a simple Google search will provide wonderful detail. Enjoy.

Is Dick Cheney Sane?

Being Dick Cheney

Tom Tomorrow on This Modern World makes the case that Vice President Dick Cheney is really insane. You be the judge.

Bush vs Iraq's Future

The Fund for Peace report: Iraq as Failed State

The Fund for Peace has issued a report in which it declares that Iraq is not in danger of becoming a failed state; it already is one. Juan Cole reports Newsday's coverage of the report:

' Dr. Pauline H. Baker, author of the report, describes a failed state syndrome as a condition in which a number of trends reinforce each other to produce spiraling conflict that the country has little or no independent capacity to stop. The report concludes that, a year after the invasion, Iraq is as shattered as it was the day that Saddam Hussein was overthrown, the main difference being that organized militias and terrorist groups have gained a foothold they did not have before.

"We have to get the facts straight before we can get the policy straight," said Dr. Baker. "Currently, there are three major fictions that are being used to describe the transition in Iraq. The first is analytical - that Iraq could become a failed state, when, in fact, it already has failed. The second is legal - that the occupation will end on June 30, when, in fact, the occupation will end when foreign troops are withdrawn and capable Iraqi security forces take over. And the third is political - that after June 30, the sovereign government of Iraq and the people will be allied with the United States. In fact, the interim government will not have full sovereignty and the people are increasingly fearful and resentful of the U.S. presence."

The whole report is worth reading. It certainly gives the lie to most of our current policy and planning in Iraq.

Rat/Tenet Deserts the Sinking Bush Ship

CIA Director Tenet Resigns

When I heard that George Tenet had resigned as Director of the CIA the first thing I thought of was Al Gore's call last week for his resignation:

We desperately need a national security team with at least minimal competence because the current team is making things worse with each passing day. They are endangering the lives of our soldiers, and sharply increasing the danger faced by American citizens everywhere in the world, including here at home. They are enraging hundreds of millions of people and embittering an entire generation of anti-Americans whose rage is already near the boiling point.

We simply cannot afford to further increase the risk to our country with more blunders by this team. Donald Rumsfeld, as the chief architect of the war plan, should resign today. His deputies Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and his intelligence chief Stephen Cambone should also resign. The nation is especially at risk every single day that Rumsfeld remains as Secretary of Defense.

Condoleeza Rice, who has badly mishandled the coordination of national security policy, should also resign immediately.

George Tenet should also resign. I want to offer a special word about George Tenet, because he is a personal friend and I know him to be a good and decent man. It is especially painful to call for his resignation, but I have regretfully concluded that it is extremely important that our country have new leadership at the CIA immediately.

This leads me to a wonderful fantasy; just as Bush is giving a speech each week in an effort to increase support for his failed policies in Iraq, Gore should give a speech each week making an unlikely demand on the Bush administration. No one would have believed that Tenet would resign a week after Gore called for it, so who knows, maybe a new demand every week would allow us to dismantle the Bush administration week by week. What fun!

And since Condi Rice was one of those whose resignations he demanded, this story has added interest:

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice yesterday promised Congress a full investigation into allegations that an Iraqi politician supported by the Pentagon told Iran the United States had broken the code it used for secret communications, and U.S. officials said the revelation destroyed an important source of intelligence.

And if you really believe that Rice will actually investigate Chalabi, I have a bridge I want to talk to you about.

Molly Ivens vs Bush

10 ways we botched Iraq

In case you think no one in public life is capable of intelligent thought about Iraq, I recommend a speech made by Gen. Anthony Zinni (well, OK, so he's slightly retired) May 12 to the Center for Defense Information. In it, Zinni lists the 10 mistakes he believes were responsible for getting us into this fine mess.