Many of you are no doubt befuddled and concerned about the seemingly irrational policy decision by the Bush administration to turn over control and operation of six of the nation's largest and most sensitive ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. Please rest easy. There is a method to the madness and a rational explanation for the Bush support of the transaction. You may not LIKE the rationale, but it does make sense to true Patriots.
Before you get in an uproar, and work yourself into an apoplectic fit over the seeming incongruity, let's review the situation. The President claims that he needs to trample and curtail civil rights and basic Democratic freedoms in the interests of protecting "National Security." He declares that neither the Congress nor the Constitution has the authority to limit his perogatives in his quest, if protecting National Security is his goal. The end justifies any means he may conceive or manufacture. He has established a new Cabinet level Agency for "Homeland Security" to make sure that federal policy and executive initiatives or action are consistent with protecting national security and protecting Americans. Goodness! I almost feel better about giving up my Fourth Amendment and First Amendment rights, knowing that I can go to sleep each night with the comfort that only the FBI, the CIA or some federal agent will storm my bedroom and take me hostage. At least it will not be some foreign "terrorist." Good old GW is at the ready and ever vigilant [except perhaps whenever an emergency like 9/11 or Katrina strikes after the President had significant prior warning, but everybody makes some mistakes, right?]
Now we are told that GW has carefully reviewed the decision to transfer control of major US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. And some of you question the decision. Perhaps you are just being Arabophobic? After all, the Bush family has had financial dealings and strong financial ties to the UAE for many years and why should we not trust the Bush family to look out for the best interests of the nation? We should not be ready to reject a very profitable deal just because the transaction involves Arabs.
But you argue that your objections really are not based upon the fact that the company is owned by "Arabs," but that it does make a difference that it specifically involves the UAE. You remind us that two of the conspirators who were actually involved in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center were directly linked to the UAE. You say that you would rather have a company owned by the government of Iraq purchasing the port operating concern than a company owned by UAE or Saudi Arabia. After all, the record is clear that no one in Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attack on the US. There were no weapons of mass destruction or biological weapons in Iraq either. And Saddam Hussein had been successful in stifling any influence by Al Qaida in Iraq prior to the US invasion.
You also argue that if the reason for fighting in Iraq is to engage pockets or terrorist away from US shores in order to prevent having to combat them at home, that it does not make sense to establish organizations in major US ports that are easily subject to infiltration and which allow terrorist cells and organizations to set up convenient beach heads on US soil. I would agree that your argument has some plausible merit.
But it does not out weigh the confidence we should place in our President. After all, would a financial partner who has diverted millions of dollars into the family coffers of the Bush family turn around and double cross his good and faithful partner of many years? That is so unlikely after GW has just expended a large amount of political capital to assure the UAE company nearly monopolistic control over the trade through major ports of this country. GW may talk about saving lives and protecting national interest, but what he clearly worships more than anything is money and loyalty. Just think about it! When people were starving and dying after Katrina struck, who stepped up and awarded millions of dollars in no bid contracts to Halliburton to perform wasteful and useless tasks at extreme profit. That's money and loyalty. And when you consider that Halliburton was under investigation for gross fraud and overcharging for similar types of contracts in Iraq, you have to admit that GW has conviction. George knows his friends alright.
So when George tells us that he has been assured by his loyal friends in the government of Dubai and the UAE that takeover of major US ports poses no risk to "national security," especially when that assurance is backed up by VERY fat bank accounts of the Bush family in the Bank of Houston [as well as a number of offshore accounts], who are we to second guess our Commander in Chief? He hasn't been wrong yet, ...or has he?
[If you'll excuse me, I have to go now. I have my broker on the phone about selling my property in New York and Philadelphia and reinvesting in new locations as far away from major ports as possible. Really, just a coincidence...]
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Tight Lips Sink Elephants - GOP worries over Cheney silence
Given the extreme secretive nature of the Bush administration, except when they seek to push propaganda, it is not surprising that there has been no urgency to inform the public of the details of the shooting incident at the Texas Armstrong Ranch. Cheney, in particular, prefers to be a backroom politician, emerging from cover only temporarily to snipe at political enemies and critics. But the callous silence surrounding the shooting of his supposed pal and big time GOP contributor smacks of something more. The 20 hour delay in even getting word out to local press, when cell phones and command post equipment was readily at hand, suggests that there was a need to cover up certain facts and present a story with enough "truthiness" to be palatable to the media and the public.
The White House initial spin of blaming Whittington, the victim for the shooting accident was not only cruel, but politically dangerous. If it was to be portrayed as an "accident," then why spin it as anyone's fault? The logical answer is to shift blame from the vice president. To pose a likely scenario, and yes this is speculation - but educated guesses have some merit, Cheney and his hunting buddies had been drinking and neither Cheney nor Whittington was alert enough to pay full attention to what they were doing. Cheney saw movement in the brush and turned and fired his shotgun at the movement. Every hunter knows that you are supposed to look carefully and aim before pulling the trigger. Trying to place the blame upon Whittington is simply cruel and dishonest. The gun did not "go off" accidentally, Cheney deliberately pulled the trigger.
No secret service personnel was going to stop Cheney from hoisting a few, or from going out on the hunting escapade. Hunting accidents of this type do happen frequently, but usually when drinking has been involved. As a result, the incident was kept quiet long enough for blood alcohol levels to dissipate. Had local authorities been called in to investigate, as would happen for a typical citizen, standard procedures would have required screening to see if alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. There would have been an independent investigative reference to the scene and a check on the extent to which the vice president and his office could fabricate a story. As it now stands, the GOP and Cheney will have a large debt to repay to Whittington to keep him quiet about the actual events out on the Armstrong Ranch last Saturday. This story will be up to Cheney's staff [or perhaps ultimatel a federal prosecutor] to reveal. Cheney can be thankful that the incident did not happen in Ronnie Earle's bailiwick.
Cheney does not believe that he is answerable to the law or to the American people. And we know what he does to people who challenge him or disagree with his distorted view of the world and himself. If Whittington decides to publicly tell the truth about the incident, the shooting he got will seem like a Swedish Massage compared to the treatment Cheney will deliver.
The White House initial spin of blaming Whittington, the victim for the shooting accident was not only cruel, but politically dangerous. If it was to be portrayed as an "accident," then why spin it as anyone's fault? The logical answer is to shift blame from the vice president. To pose a likely scenario, and yes this is speculation - but educated guesses have some merit, Cheney and his hunting buddies had been drinking and neither Cheney nor Whittington was alert enough to pay full attention to what they were doing. Cheney saw movement in the brush and turned and fired his shotgun at the movement. Every hunter knows that you are supposed to look carefully and aim before pulling the trigger. Trying to place the blame upon Whittington is simply cruel and dishonest. The gun did not "go off" accidentally, Cheney deliberately pulled the trigger.
No secret service personnel was going to stop Cheney from hoisting a few, or from going out on the hunting escapade. Hunting accidents of this type do happen frequently, but usually when drinking has been involved. As a result, the incident was kept quiet long enough for blood alcohol levels to dissipate. Had local authorities been called in to investigate, as would happen for a typical citizen, standard procedures would have required screening to see if alcohol consumption was a contributing factor. There would have been an independent investigative reference to the scene and a check on the extent to which the vice president and his office could fabricate a story. As it now stands, the GOP and Cheney will have a large debt to repay to Whittington to keep him quiet about the actual events out on the Armstrong Ranch last Saturday. This story will be up to Cheney's staff [or perhaps ultimatel a federal prosecutor] to reveal. Cheney can be thankful that the incident did not happen in Ronnie Earle's bailiwick.
Cheney does not believe that he is answerable to the law or to the American people. And we know what he does to people who challenge him or disagree with his distorted view of the world and himself. If Whittington decides to publicly tell the truth about the incident, the shooting he got will seem like a Swedish Massage compared to the treatment Cheney will deliver.
Monday, February 13, 2006
Cheney - Shoot First, Question Later
Vice President Dick Cheney, attended by friends and a bevy of secret service agents, turned and proceeded to shoot a 78 year old friend and multi-millionaire GOP financier full of buckshot while hunting in Texas. Cheney claims it was an accident and that he thought that he was shooting at a covey of quail. Luckily, the victim is recovering in the hospital. [Since he is a prominent lawyer, one wonders whether he will pursue a claim against Cheney for negligence or assault with a deadly weapon.]
The first and most obvious question that this episode raises is whether we want Cheney standing a heartbeat from the presidency and just as close to the trigger for WMD's in the US arsenal. Someone who is so impulsive that he does not look carefully and think before pulling the trigger is not someone that inspires a lot of confidence if he is could as easily have had a nuclear weapon in his grasp as a shotgun. And, let's face it, Cheney has already shown a penchant for being hot tempered and letting his wrath loose upon undeserving individuals [eg. Ambassador Wilson and Valerie Plame].
The next logical question is whether Cheney has a firm enough grasp on reality to be invested with the power and authority that he dangerously wields. Statements that he has made publicly regarding his assessment of the status of the war and the insurgency in Iraq are about as accurate as his assessment that his hunting partner was a covey of quail. Those misjudgments have caused serious injury to others. Only the scale of the damage is different. While it is extremely doubtful, perhaps this experience will provide Cheney a glimmer of insight about the serious consequence of misjudgments in the use of lethal force.
Friday, February 10, 2006
When a Cartoon is Definitely NOT Funny
The current debate demonstrates the subtle line between freedom of expression and inciting to riot. Everyone engaged in the debate agrees that freedom of speech and expression is fundamental to a free and democratic secular society. Likewise, all agree that freedom of the press entails responsibility to exercise the right responsibly and the right of the recipients to be offended by the publication. There will always be tension between these two principles and disagreement over what constitutes "responsible" exercise of free expression rights. In addition, the exercise of the right of free expression in a responsible manner is contextual, and not absolute. The context may involve the speaker, such as a keynote speaker at a large public rally or a major newspaper or network media organization. The context may involve the audience, such as an audience in a darkened theatre, or a large group whose hostile sensibilities have already been raised.
Whether they choose to admit it or not, newspapers and other media who publish material are different from an individual uttering a statement on a street corner. As a matter of practice, newspaper editorial policies have required corroboration before printing a story, to protect the credibility of their news organization. On editorial commentary matters, special care is taken to explain that "opinion" rather than fact is being published. News reporting is a combination of free speech and commercial speech. The Danish government initially refused to step into the current controversy, stating that it would not apologize for the publication of the offensive caricatures because they were published by a "free press." Their failure to think through the issues resulted in their being dragged into the conflict involuntarily. The flaw in the Danish government response is that "freedom of the press" or speech refers primarily to "prior restraint." In other words, the government cannot censor free expression by preventing its publication. The government can, however, sanction or comment upon speech or publication after the fact, if the expression recklessly or intentionally caused harm to the public.
In the current world environment, western leaders [the most arrogant of them being George W. Bush] have maintained a stream of bellicose and disparaging rhetoric against Islamic governments, and in some instances against all Muslims by implication. The invasion of Iraq, the public condemnation of the Hamas victory in Palestine, the attempts to bully the Iranian government, constant sniping and disparagement of Syrian and Jordan people and their leaders, abuses and torture of Muslim detainees, and desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, all have contributed to an atmosphere of hostility toward Muslims. That prevalent atmosphere precludes examination of the cartoon publication as a single or isolated event. Whether intentionally created or not, the global Islamic community perception of being disrespected and under assault is a plausible and reasonable reaction. The decision of other newspapers to republish the cartoons after the clear negative reaction from Muslims could reasonably be seen as further provocation.
There needs to be some level of tolerance for offensive speech, However, we understand that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be criminal and likely to cause injury to the audience trying to escape. Screaming "attack" to a large group on the verge of rioting would be unlawful incitement to violence. Can knowing republication of images with knowledge of the action being a defamatory, disrespectful and insulting attack on the Islamic religion and sensibilities of its adherents be easily justified?
I am not aware of anyone who openly advocated for violence in the protests against the defamation and desecration of the image of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim clerics have denounced the violence and called for peaceful protest. Inflammatory rhetoric from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice blaming the reaction of the crowds upon "outside agitators" and urging governments to crack down on protesters neither explains adequately nor helps the situation. Peaceful protest is also a fundamental tenet of a free and democratic society. This Bush administration obsession with creating and demonizing a vaguely defined "enemy," conduct that easily dissolves into a bigoted stereotype of Arabs and Muslims generally, is part of the fuel that has created the inflamed situation.
We know from experience that certain situations involving "freedom of speech and assembly" are fraught with danger and likely to threaten public safety. A neo-nazi demonstration in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood tends to be regulated extremely tightly, or disallowed and redirected to other less dangerous public areas. Hate speech is also something that has seen regulatory intervention on similar grounds to the theatre panic provocation or riot incitement examples. So the Danish government could have chosen to step in to condemn the publication of the offending images. Denouncing the CHOICE to publish, while acknowledging the RIGHT to publish, might have helped to diffuse the situation without abridging freedom of the press. An apology explaining that neither the Danish people nor their government's views were represented by the publication or its message could have helped. The Muslim community would still have been justifiably offended, but the issue would perhaps have been placed more in perspective.
A more difficult question lies with news media that have chosen to republish the offensive cartoons after witnessing the reaction to the inflammatory and offensive pictures. The initial publication could conceivably claim cultural ignorance and insensitivity, but those who republished the cartoons clearly cannot. Claiming support of freedom of the press seems a bit too facile and disingenuous. The more likely reason was profit motive because it is a hot current topic that could drive sales or increase ratings. This is where publication by the news media veers closer to commercial speech than to the core principle of freedom of expression.
However, there is plenty of blame to go around. Danish Muslim clerics chose to spread word of the cartoons being published to the global Islamic community after failing to get a response that they considered satisfactory from the Danish government. In so doing, they too inflamed the situation with knowledge that the offensive images would spark protests. Responsibility for the consequent deaths rests upon their shoulders as well. The Arab press also has published without apology very anti-semitic cartoons that were deliberately offensive to Jews. So the current outrage must be viewed in light of this double standard.
There well may be agents provocateur in the protesting crowds. However, Muslims are not mindless cattle who can be driven to stampede for no reason. Were it not for the pervasive hostile atmosphere and the perception by many Muslims that their faith is being both distrespected and attacked systematically and concertedly, it is doubtful that the crowds could so easily have been driven to violent protest. Had immediate steps been taken to diffuse the situation been taken, the current escalated frenzy would not have been reached. A match thrown on the ground will do nothing. But toss that match into a pool of gasoline or dry grass, and don't be surprised by a conflagration.
Whether they choose to admit it or not, newspapers and other media who publish material are different from an individual uttering a statement on a street corner. As a matter of practice, newspaper editorial policies have required corroboration before printing a story, to protect the credibility of their news organization. On editorial commentary matters, special care is taken to explain that "opinion" rather than fact is being published. News reporting is a combination of free speech and commercial speech. The Danish government initially refused to step into the current controversy, stating that it would not apologize for the publication of the offensive caricatures because they were published by a "free press." Their failure to think through the issues resulted in their being dragged into the conflict involuntarily. The flaw in the Danish government response is that "freedom of the press" or speech refers primarily to "prior restraint." In other words, the government cannot censor free expression by preventing its publication. The government can, however, sanction or comment upon speech or publication after the fact, if the expression recklessly or intentionally caused harm to the public.
In the current world environment, western leaders [the most arrogant of them being George W. Bush] have maintained a stream of bellicose and disparaging rhetoric against Islamic governments, and in some instances against all Muslims by implication. The invasion of Iraq, the public condemnation of the Hamas victory in Palestine, the attempts to bully the Iranian government, constant sniping and disparagement of Syrian and Jordan people and their leaders, abuses and torture of Muslim detainees, and desecration of the Koran in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, all have contributed to an atmosphere of hostility toward Muslims. That prevalent atmosphere precludes examination of the cartoon publication as a single or isolated event. Whether intentionally created or not, the global Islamic community perception of being disrespected and under assault is a plausible and reasonable reaction. The decision of other newspapers to republish the cartoons after the clear negative reaction from Muslims could reasonably be seen as further provocation.
There needs to be some level of tolerance for offensive speech, However, we understand that yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre would be criminal and likely to cause injury to the audience trying to escape. Screaming "attack" to a large group on the verge of rioting would be unlawful incitement to violence. Can knowing republication of images with knowledge of the action being a defamatory, disrespectful and insulting attack on the Islamic religion and sensibilities of its adherents be easily justified?
I am not aware of anyone who openly advocated for violence in the protests against the defamation and desecration of the image of the Prophet Muhammad. Muslim clerics have denounced the violence and called for peaceful protest. Inflammatory rhetoric from Bush and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice blaming the reaction of the crowds upon "outside agitators" and urging governments to crack down on protesters neither explains adequately nor helps the situation. Peaceful protest is also a fundamental tenet of a free and democratic society. This Bush administration obsession with creating and demonizing a vaguely defined "enemy," conduct that easily dissolves into a bigoted stereotype of Arabs and Muslims generally, is part of the fuel that has created the inflamed situation.
We know from experience that certain situations involving "freedom of speech and assembly" are fraught with danger and likely to threaten public safety. A neo-nazi demonstration in a predominantly Jewish neighborhood tends to be regulated extremely tightly, or disallowed and redirected to other less dangerous public areas. Hate speech is also something that has seen regulatory intervention on similar grounds to the theatre panic provocation or riot incitement examples. So the Danish government could have chosen to step in to condemn the publication of the offending images. Denouncing the CHOICE to publish, while acknowledging the RIGHT to publish, might have helped to diffuse the situation without abridging freedom of the press. An apology explaining that neither the Danish people nor their government's views were represented by the publication or its message could have helped. The Muslim community would still have been justifiably offended, but the issue would perhaps have been placed more in perspective.
A more difficult question lies with news media that have chosen to republish the offensive cartoons after witnessing the reaction to the inflammatory and offensive pictures. The initial publication could conceivably claim cultural ignorance and insensitivity, but those who republished the cartoons clearly cannot. Claiming support of freedom of the press seems a bit too facile and disingenuous. The more likely reason was profit motive because it is a hot current topic that could drive sales or increase ratings. This is where publication by the news media veers closer to commercial speech than to the core principle of freedom of expression.
However, there is plenty of blame to go around. Danish Muslim clerics chose to spread word of the cartoons being published to the global Islamic community after failing to get a response that they considered satisfactory from the Danish government. In so doing, they too inflamed the situation with knowledge that the offensive images would spark protests. Responsibility for the consequent deaths rests upon their shoulders as well. The Arab press also has published without apology very anti-semitic cartoons that were deliberately offensive to Jews. So the current outrage must be viewed in light of this double standard.
There well may be agents provocateur in the protesting crowds. However, Muslims are not mindless cattle who can be driven to stampede for no reason. Were it not for the pervasive hostile atmosphere and the perception by many Muslims that their faith is being both distrespected and attacked systematically and concertedly, it is doubtful that the crowds could so easily have been driven to violent protest. Had immediate steps been taken to diffuse the situation been taken, the current escalated frenzy would not have been reached. A match thrown on the ground will do nothing. But toss that match into a pool of gasoline or dry grass, and don't be surprised by a conflagration.
Cliches Revisited - "Read Their Lips!"
There is an old cliche that fits Bush Administration officials: "How can you tell if a Bushie is lying?.... His/her lips are moving." New revelations about the timing and amount of correspondence with the White house regarding the Katrina Hurricane response show quite clearly that Bush was again lying to the American people when he said that he and his staff were unaware of the New Orleans levee breaches until the day after Katrina struck. In fact, they knew as early as 11:30AM on the day the storm hit New Orleans. The makeshift response now is that it did made no difference, but that the important issue is that there was flooding. WRONG! Whether because of stupidity or ignorance, the attempts being made to rationalize the failed administration response do not [pardon the expression] hold water.
First of all, there is the basic question about lying to the American people, particularly if everything possible was done regardless of when the White House received notice. Second, if the levees had not been breached, the flow of water that had overtaken the barriers would recede as the storm passed, and the severe flooding would have been more temporary. The breach of the levees signaled an unmitigated flooding episode that would require much more damage and longer term relief efforts. Rescue and emergency response efforts should have been planned and mobilized with recognition that the scope and seriousness of the disaster had risen to a much higher level. But this points out the larger failing of the Bush administration of making policies without understanding the technical and science issues, and driving the experienced professionals out in favor of political hack appointees.
There is an old cliche about the Minnesota weather, "if you don't like the current weather, wait an hour and it will change." This cliche could easily be applied to the defenses and justifications the Bush administration floats to avoid taking responsibility and to excuse its failures. "If you don't like this explanation, wait an hour and we will come up with a new one." It perhaps never occurred to them that telling the truth might be a more efficient response. If the truth were disclosed, you would not have to keep changing the story. But the Bush administration has even spawned a new term in the political and journalistic lexicon - "truthiness." Unable to recognize or unwilling to disclose the truth, the Bush administration spin masters strive to present statements and explanations that "sound" like they might be truthful, even if they have no proximity to the actual truth or basis in fact or reality.
Finally, the old cliche about "what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive" is spot on for the current Bush administration. Perhaps the reason why the Democrats and other Bush critics are having such difficulty articulating a concise message to describe the problems with this administration, is that the web of lies and deceit, distortion and corruption is so broad, so deep and pervasive that there is no obvious place to start. If you take virtually any aspect of the Bush administration and the GOP Congressional leadership, you would be hard put to find one instance in which the taint of corruption, lies and deliberate deception of the American people is not readily identifiable. From a President and White House staff who deem themselves above the law, to a cabinet full of corruption and cronyism, to GOP Congressional leaders peddling influence to lobbyists and sneaking language into legislation after the conference committee has signed off and adjourned, and congressional staffers going to work for lobbyists to maintain a direct pipeline of graft. Half of the GOP leadership are facing criminal investigation of some kind and possible indictments.
It is truly sad that we have reached a point where we cannot rely upon anything that comes from the lips of those elected officials who have the power to enact rules and enforce laws that seriously affect our lives daily. The only thing we can reasonably rely upon is that if Bush or Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice, Frist or Hastert or Boehner say anything publicly, you can bet that it is not the truth, no matter how much "truthiness" their declaration may seem to have.
First of all, there is the basic question about lying to the American people, particularly if everything possible was done regardless of when the White House received notice. Second, if the levees had not been breached, the flow of water that had overtaken the barriers would recede as the storm passed, and the severe flooding would have been more temporary. The breach of the levees signaled an unmitigated flooding episode that would require much more damage and longer term relief efforts. Rescue and emergency response efforts should have been planned and mobilized with recognition that the scope and seriousness of the disaster had risen to a much higher level. But this points out the larger failing of the Bush administration of making policies without understanding the technical and science issues, and driving the experienced professionals out in favor of political hack appointees.
There is an old cliche about the Minnesota weather, "if you don't like the current weather, wait an hour and it will change." This cliche could easily be applied to the defenses and justifications the Bush administration floats to avoid taking responsibility and to excuse its failures. "If you don't like this explanation, wait an hour and we will come up with a new one." It perhaps never occurred to them that telling the truth might be a more efficient response. If the truth were disclosed, you would not have to keep changing the story. But the Bush administration has even spawned a new term in the political and journalistic lexicon - "truthiness." Unable to recognize or unwilling to disclose the truth, the Bush administration spin masters strive to present statements and explanations that "sound" like they might be truthful, even if they have no proximity to the actual truth or basis in fact or reality.
Finally, the old cliche about "what tangled webs we weave when we practice to deceive" is spot on for the current Bush administration. Perhaps the reason why the Democrats and other Bush critics are having such difficulty articulating a concise message to describe the problems with this administration, is that the web of lies and deceit, distortion and corruption is so broad, so deep and pervasive that there is no obvious place to start. If you take virtually any aspect of the Bush administration and the GOP Congressional leadership, you would be hard put to find one instance in which the taint of corruption, lies and deliberate deception of the American people is not readily identifiable. From a President and White House staff who deem themselves above the law, to a cabinet full of corruption and cronyism, to GOP Congressional leaders peddling influence to lobbyists and sneaking language into legislation after the conference committee has signed off and adjourned, and congressional staffers going to work for lobbyists to maintain a direct pipeline of graft. Half of the GOP leadership are facing criminal investigation of some kind and possible indictments.
It is truly sad that we have reached a point where we cannot rely upon anything that comes from the lips of those elected officials who have the power to enact rules and enforce laws that seriously affect our lives daily. The only thing we can reasonably rely upon is that if Bush or Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice, Frist or Hastert or Boehner say anything publicly, you can bet that it is not the truth, no matter how much "truthiness" their declaration may seem to have.
Defending NSA Wiretapping - Ready, Aim, Poof!
Were it not for the fact that Alberto Gonzales has prostituted himslef so many times for the sake of his "friend" George W. Bush, one could almost feel some sympathy for him while addressing the Senate Judiciary Committee. He looked like a man facing a firing squad and appeared to be just about as defenseless with his ludicrous defense of the President's domestic spying program. Of course, coming from a man who penned and approved legal memoranda that purported to justify and legalize torture of detainees in order to vindicate his boss, it is not surprising to find Gonzalez coming to a shootout with no bullets in his gun.
Gonzales, with a dour and reasonably straight face, told the Committee that the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force in Afghanistan to go after suspected terrorists (and those harboring or abetting terrorists) to prevent future attacks like the 9/11, supports the use of a domestic spying program. Never mind that not one Congressional representative from any political stripe thought that the resolution stated or even permitted that interpretation. In the mind of Gonzalez, Congress authorized the President to protect the American people from terrorist attacks. Therefore, the President is authorized to do anything he chooses and use any means to pursue that objective. He need not obey any Congressional limits, any statutes that Congress has enacted, any treaties that the US has adopted or even any Constitutional limits. The Administration essentially argues that he cannot break the law because he is above the law and anything he chooses to do is therefore legal.
Other Republicans have come shuffling to the President's support by arguing that "the end justifies the means." Jeff Sessions, R-AL stated:"One case of identifying one sleeper cell can mean a matter of life and death," he said on CBS. "It's not academic." By his logic, domestic spying on thousands of innocent Americans is justified if it nets even a single terrorist or terrorist plot. Of course, the US tried this logic before in WWII by putting Japanese Americans in "internment camps" to supposedly prevent their collaboration with the enemy. Unfortunately for Bush and Gonzalez, the Supreme Court ruled squarely that the practice was unconstitutional. Gonzalez seems to have skipped a few pages when he was supposed to have been syudying history, and in law school as well. [But then his boss was not to much of a stickler for actually being present in duty assignments, like school or National Guard service.]
Another Administration flack, General hayden, claims that the program is not used as a "drift net" in which thousands of communications are intercepted and then culled to find only the ones that justify further scrutiny. Of course, neither Hayden or any other Administration official will reveal any information that would back up their assertions, and they claim that releasing that information would endanger American lives [they decline to explain how]. We are exhorted to trust them in their good faith exercise of unbridled executive power and unreviewable discretion.
However, Information that has been released about the program, and comments from those familiar with it, suggest very clearly that the program has been used to intercept thousands of communications and less than a dozen have arguably contained any information that could have justified getting a warrant from the extremely accommodating FISA Court. This does not mean that the intercepted communications were actually harmful or that they actually involved any terrorist activity, only that they involved individuals or content that provided the most meager basis for justifying that they should be intercepted in the first place.
Former Congressional leader Tom Daschle has stated, in rebuttal to the Gonzalez assertion that the Resolution authorizes domestic spying, that the Administration sought to include such language in the proposed authorization and Congress expressly rejected it. So to argue that the Congressional Resolution supports the domestic spying program is not only absurd, it is a flat out lie. Arlen Specter, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee has expressed frustration at the Administration's refusal to allow Administration officials to testify, to release legal opinions regarding the program or to release any documents showing how the program is actually being used. [Most of us would call that "stonewalling," and the GOP would have called it that too if the information was sought from a Democratic White House.]
The GOP controlled Congress has been doinf backflips to give the administration any possible out or excuse to justify the legality of the president's conduct. In response to the White House lack of cooperation, Specter has urged that the White House go and get an opinion from the FISA Court as to whether the program is legal. That would put the Bush Administration in a real bind. The FISA Court would be asked to determine whether the FISA Court itself is irrelevant, because if the President can circumvent the warrant procedure entirely whenever the President wants to, there is nothing for the FISA Court to do and no reason for it to exist. It would require an amazing argument to convince the FISA Court that Congress expressly created a court to review and oversee wiretap authorizations, and then authorize the President to ignore that Court at his complete discretion. One FISA Court Judge has resigned in protest of the administration's activities.
How simple would it be to take random example of wiretaps that the administration has done and ask for in camera review by the FISA Court, after the fact, to at least give some comfort that the activity truly was connected to counterterrorism and was not completely abusive and illegal. Of course, doing so would negate the administration argument that following the FISA procedures would have imposed too much of a burden.
So we get to watch Gonzalez squirm while trying to defend the indefensible. At least Colin Powell appeared to have been given filtered or false information when he was required to go before the United Nations and make a complete fool of himself. Gonzalez, unless he is totally incompetent as a lawyer [an open question], clearly knows that he is pitching a loser.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Rumsfeld Likens Chavez to Hitler - Things that Make You Go HMMMM
With the sweep, grandeur and sheer volume of the profoundly stupid things that Bush Administration officials come up with almost daily, the one positive contribution is that there is never a dearth of material for critical commentary. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld met with reporters and put a hobnailed boot in his mouth without even realizing the stupidity of his comments. Consider the fact that the Bush administration is embroiled in multiple scandals involving corruption at the highest levels. It goes beyond the influence peddling with Jack Abramoff and the deliberate leaking of the identity of Valerie Plame to politically punish her husband for publicly disagreeing with the President's agenda. The corruption includes the "conspiracy to wage aggrssive war" that resulted in the invasion, decimation and occupation of Iraq. It also includes the deliberate circumvention of Congress, the law and the Constitution to engage in domestic spying.
Now consider the following comments from the lips of Rumsfeld, referring to Latin America:
“We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy.”
Perhaps the Secretary of Defense never had a parent to admonish him about the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black." There is no doubt that certain levels of corruption have existed in government regimes in South Amerca and throughout the world. But to date, none of the corruption in South America has reached the levels displayed by the Bush Administration in terms of hundreds of millions of public dollars siphoned off to Halliburton and wasted through bribes and plain mismanagement, and the totally unnecessary loss of thousands of lives. Mr. Rumsfeld would do well to tend his own garden and shore up the glass walls in his own house before venturing out publicly to throw stones at others far less culpable.
Since he believed that he was on a roll, as most fools do when given too much public attention, Rumsfeld proceeded to liken President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to Adolf Hitler. Whatever you might say about Chavez, you cannot accuse him of armed invasion of another sovereign country, killing thousands of that country's innocent civilians, attacking civilians with napalm like chemical weapons and systematically torturing prisoners and holding them indefinitely without charges or right to even allow the Red Cross to see them. No, I am not referring to Adolf Hitler. I am referring to the US Military under the direct leadership and orders of Donald Rumsfeld. Whether because of ignorance or arrogance, or both, Rumsfeld asserted a comparison that applies more to his own conduct than that of Hugo Chavez.
The recent news revealed minutes from a meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush in which Bush proposed sending drone planes over Iraq, fraudulently painted with UN colors, to provoke Hussein's soldiers to fire upon the drones and thereby provide "justification" for a UN resolution against Iraq. But Bush further told Blair that he planned to attack Iraq regardless of provocation or UN resolution, acknowledging that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bush in their "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" should remind us of a tribunal held about 40 years ago in Nurenburg Germany. For that conduct represented the first of four charges leveled against the Nazi war criminals, including Rumsfeld's counterpart Hermann Goehring. My parents told me to be careful when pointing a finger, because there would be three fingers of my own pointing right back at me. Another important lesson of youth that seems to have escaped Rumsfeld.
Now consider the following comments from the lips of Rumsfeld, referring to Latin America:
“We also saw corruption in that part of the world. And corruption is something that is corrosive of democracy.”
Perhaps the Secretary of Defense never had a parent to admonish him about the proverbial "pot calling the kettle black." There is no doubt that certain levels of corruption have existed in government regimes in South Amerca and throughout the world. But to date, none of the corruption in South America has reached the levels displayed by the Bush Administration in terms of hundreds of millions of public dollars siphoned off to Halliburton and wasted through bribes and plain mismanagement, and the totally unnecessary loss of thousands of lives. Mr. Rumsfeld would do well to tend his own garden and shore up the glass walls in his own house before venturing out publicly to throw stones at others far less culpable.
Since he believed that he was on a roll, as most fools do when given too much public attention, Rumsfeld proceeded to liken President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela to Adolf Hitler. Whatever you might say about Chavez, you cannot accuse him of armed invasion of another sovereign country, killing thousands of that country's innocent civilians, attacking civilians with napalm like chemical weapons and systematically torturing prisoners and holding them indefinitely without charges or right to even allow the Red Cross to see them. No, I am not referring to Adolf Hitler. I am referring to the US Military under the direct leadership and orders of Donald Rumsfeld. Whether because of ignorance or arrogance, or both, Rumsfeld asserted a comparison that applies more to his own conduct than that of Hugo Chavez.
The recent news revealed minutes from a meeting between Tony Blair and George W. Bush in which Bush proposed sending drone planes over Iraq, fraudulently painted with UN colors, to provoke Hussein's soldiers to fire upon the drones and thereby provide "justification" for a UN resolution against Iraq. But Bush further told Blair that he planned to attack Iraq regardless of provocation or UN resolution, acknowledging that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. Rumsfeld and Bush in their "conspiracy to wage aggressive war" should remind us of a tribunal held about 40 years ago in Nurenburg Germany. For that conduct represented the first of four charges leveled against the Nazi war criminals, including Rumsfeld's counterpart Hermann Goehring. My parents told me to be careful when pointing a finger, because there would be three fingers of my own pointing right back at me. Another important lesson of youth that seems to have escaped Rumsfeld.
The Amherst Decision - A Step in The Right Direction
In a quiet but principled move that is so rare these days, but which could serve as an example to others, Amherst College Trustees decided to disinvest in companies doing business with the government of Sudan. To those whose attention has been riveted to the distraction of the Iraq occupation, it may come as a surprise that the Sudanese government has sponsored and facilitated the genocide of more than 200,000 innocent civilians in the Darfur region, while many tens of thousands more have died of starvation and deprivation after being driven from their homes into the arrid desert. The size of the average household in the area has been reduced by about 50% as a result. Despite calls from the international community, the Sudanese government has done virtually nothing to stop the genocide or to help the starving and displaced victims.
As would be expected, since the people of Darfur region have no oil or major resource to exploit, the United States government has provided little more than lip service in support of the victims, "urging" the Sudanese government to improve its human rights conduct. The same President that chose to invade Iraq as a humanitarian gesture to remove an evil Saddam Hussein regime has not lifted a finger to oppose the Sudanese regime that is systematically annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent and vulnerable people. The bombing of villages, rape of inhabitants and pillaging of all belongings of value continues as the Sudanese government continues to supply militias and terrorist groups perpetrating the crimes.
Amherst College has no authority or portfolio to intervene in the crisis directly. It has no military resources to deploy, or even a diplomatic envoy to send to intervene. What it does have is an endowment of hundreds of millions of dollars. The College therefore decide to exercise the limited influence that it does have by removing from its investment portfolio any companies that deal with and profit from dealings with the Sudanese government. If all private investment were to take a similar principled stand, the collective impact would perhaps not be sufficient to save many of the people in Darfur now close to starvation. However, the clear and unequivocal stand on principle could spark a change in public opinion and corporate responsibility, and just possibly lead to real change for the better. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. We can only hope that the candle symbolized by the Amherst decision will spark a wildfire that lights up the conscience of this American Nation that is so clouded and obscured.
As would be expected, since the people of Darfur region have no oil or major resource to exploit, the United States government has provided little more than lip service in support of the victims, "urging" the Sudanese government to improve its human rights conduct. The same President that chose to invade Iraq as a humanitarian gesture to remove an evil Saddam Hussein regime has not lifted a finger to oppose the Sudanese regime that is systematically annihilating hundreds of thousands of innocent and vulnerable people. The bombing of villages, rape of inhabitants and pillaging of all belongings of value continues as the Sudanese government continues to supply militias and terrorist groups perpetrating the crimes.
Amherst College has no authority or portfolio to intervene in the crisis directly. It has no military resources to deploy, or even a diplomatic envoy to send to intervene. What it does have is an endowment of hundreds of millions of dollars. The College therefore decide to exercise the limited influence that it does have by removing from its investment portfolio any companies that deal with and profit from dealings with the Sudanese government. If all private investment were to take a similar principled stand, the collective impact would perhaps not be sufficient to save many of the people in Darfur now close to starvation. However, the clear and unequivocal stand on principle could spark a change in public opinion and corporate responsibility, and just possibly lead to real change for the better. It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness. We can only hope that the candle symbolized by the Amherst decision will spark a wildfire that lights up the conscience of this American Nation that is so clouded and obscured.
New GOP Majority Leader - New Vehicle, Same Path
In what some news organizations tout as a "surprise" vote, John Boehner has been elected the new House Majority Leader following the interim stint by Delay stand-in Roy Bount. But the result should surprise no one except the most casual observer. The GOP simply had to make a symbolic display of stepping away from the leadership cabal of Delay and his cronies, if the incumbents are to stand a chance of retaining control of the House in the upcoming mid-term elections. Yet the problem they GOP leadership faced was how to give the "appearance" of change or reform without actually promising or instituting any substantive reform measures. The logical answer was Boehner, a more than 15 year veteran of the House who is steeped in the methods of perks and perogatives of the House members.
Consider the following observation:
As the candidate himself realized, Boehner as the reform candidate was not an easy sell. His beach parties for rich donors were notorious, as were the stories of how he handed out checks from tobacco executives on the House floor a decade ago.
The standard defense mantra used by Boehner and others to scrutiny about influence peddling and dealings with Lobbyists like Abramoff:
"Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists," he told lawmakers concerned about his K Street connections, "but I have never done anything unethical."
Boener is an unrepentant and professional "bagman" for the Washington lobbyists. He trained under Delay since his third term in Congress. Boehner was chosen to be the new majorioty leader precisely because he was not publicly selected by Delay and Hastert to be the placeholder for Delay, who arrogantly assumed that his return to power was inevitable. He was also chosen because he presented no threat of actually shaking up or changing the way things have been done in the GOP controlled House of Representatives. The candidate who ran for Majority Leader who did present a prospect of real change ran such a distant third in the initial round of voting that he promptly withdrew. Keep in mind that Blount remains on the team as Majority Whip. Though the name plate on the office door will change, don't expect to see much shift in the direction or practices followed in the course of the GOP culture of corruption that permeates the House leadership.
Consider the following observation:
As the candidate himself realized, Boehner as the reform candidate was not an easy sell. His beach parties for rich donors were notorious, as were the stories of how he handed out checks from tobacco executives on the House floor a decade ago.
The standard defense mantra used by Boehner and others to scrutiny about influence peddling and dealings with Lobbyists like Abramoff:
"Yes, I am cozy with lobbyists," he told lawmakers concerned about his K Street connections, "but I have never done anything unethical."
Boener is an unrepentant and professional "bagman" for the Washington lobbyists. He trained under Delay since his third term in Congress. Boehner was chosen to be the new majorioty leader precisely because he was not publicly selected by Delay and Hastert to be the placeholder for Delay, who arrogantly assumed that his return to power was inevitable. He was also chosen because he presented no threat of actually shaking up or changing the way things have been done in the GOP controlled House of Representatives. The candidate who ran for Majority Leader who did present a prospect of real change ran such a distant third in the initial round of voting that he promptly withdrew. Keep in mind that Blount remains on the team as Majority Whip. Though the name plate on the office door will change, don't expect to see much shift in the direction or practices followed in the course of the GOP culture of corruption that permeates the House leadership.
From Ridiculous to Absurd - $70B More for War
At the risk of being labeled "unpatriotic," one must confess that priorities seem to be more than a little out of whack when the President chooses to cut Medicaid, home heating assistance to the poor, education and other domestic support program funding by $37B one day and then turn around two days later and ask for twice as much to fund unnecessary foreign adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Bush Administration is asking Congress to approve a request for more than $70B for the war effort, but only $18B for domestic spending for Katrina and Rita Hurricane victims. GOP flacks are quick to label anyone who questions this gross dislocation of priorities as unwilling to support the troops. The problem with that sophistry is that it fails to address the question of why the troops are there and whether they should remain there absorbing so large a segment of the American economy. We keep hearing the mantra that the war in Iraq is vital to American security. What is the actual basis for that assertion? Iraq never attacked the US. Saddam Hussein never launched any offensive impacting or targeting the United States or even US citizens abroad. Al-Qaida was not even a factor in the government of Iraq. Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were sworn enemies. It is alleged, but not proven that Saddam Hussein plotted an assasination attempt against George H. W. Bush. But then it is equally true that George W. Bush plotted tha assasination of Hugo Chavez, though not conclusively proven.
When and how have the American people become so cowed and unintelligent as to accept, without any factual support or justification, that a war in Iraq is vital to American "national security?" How exactly is Iraq a threat? To the rest of the world, the assertion is ridiculous. To the Muslim world, America is an invader seeking to control Iraqi oil resources. Recent polls show that most Iraqis believe that the Americans have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. A sobering 77% of Sunnis and 37% of all Iraqis believe that attacks on American occupation forces are legitimate. To the non-Muslim world, the occupation of iraq is viewed as an anti-democratic and imperialist attempt to control and manipulate an Arab state in order to further an agenda of controling the Middle East region through force. They raise legitimate questions as to why, if the true agenda is to stabilize Iraq under a government of its own people's choosing, the matter of security has not been turned over to a United nations mission and forces on a multinational basis. There appears to be no good answer except that there is no legitimate basis for the US mission and the other nations do not want to be responsible for fixing a mess that George Bush created.
Now the ridiculous situation that the US is in as a result of the Bush deception leading to invasion of Iraq has become absurd as the cost of the "war" has risen to nearly One Half Trillion dollars. [Last GAO guesstimate was $440 Trillion, with a minimum of an additional $50B in next fiscal year.]
When and how have the American people become so cowed and unintelligent as to accept, without any factual support or justification, that a war in Iraq is vital to American "national security?" How exactly is Iraq a threat? To the rest of the world, the assertion is ridiculous. To the Muslim world, America is an invader seeking to control Iraqi oil resources. Recent polls show that most Iraqis believe that the Americans have no intention of ever leaving Iraq. A sobering 77% of Sunnis and 37% of all Iraqis believe that attacks on American occupation forces are legitimate. To the non-Muslim world, the occupation of iraq is viewed as an anti-democratic and imperialist attempt to control and manipulate an Arab state in order to further an agenda of controling the Middle East region through force. They raise legitimate questions as to why, if the true agenda is to stabilize Iraq under a government of its own people's choosing, the matter of security has not been turned over to a United nations mission and forces on a multinational basis. There appears to be no good answer except that there is no legitimate basis for the US mission and the other nations do not want to be responsible for fixing a mess that George Bush created.
Now the ridiculous situation that the US is in as a result of the Bush deception leading to invasion of Iraq has become absurd as the cost of the "war" has risen to nearly One Half Trillion dollars. [Last GAO guesstimate was $440 Trillion, with a minimum of an additional $50B in next fiscal year.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)