Many have attempted to dismiss George W. Bush and his Administration as merely incompetent or a bunch of idiots. I would tend to disagree to the extent that bumbling may suggest that the Administration is not also dangerous. Our President is not the brightest bulb on the tree, and he does not pride himself as such. He sees himself as a “man of action.” Too much cerebral energy and reflection is often the enemy of action. And it would be fair to assume that Vice President Cheney prefers that the Chief Executive not be extremely bright, as that makes manipulation more difficult. It is enough that George W. Bush sees himself as the leader of the greatest nation on earth and that God has ordained him to spread the American way of life across the planet. Armed with this “knowledge,” he has implemented a foreign policy based upon confrontation rather than cooperation and diplomacy. Other sovereign states are either his pawns or his enemies. Reaching back to the Jacksonian theory of democracy and foreign relations, Bush believes that any other country that is not “democratic” is a threat to the United States. Any country that refuses to bend to the will of his Administration or that is run by a regime that rejects US claims of arbitrary rights and the license to interfere in that country’s affairs is deemed a threat or even labeled a “rogue” state.
The revived policy of Manifest Destiny that the Bush Administration espouses is not a recent development. George H.W. Bush followed it, but with a bit more finesse than his son, perhaps because of his years with the CIA and an understanding that international relations require some subtlety. The Clinton Administration senior foreign policy advisors harbored the notion that the US had the right to intervene in the affairs of other sovereign nations if there appeared to be a serious threat to US control of global economic markets. Clinton preferred diplomacy, perhaps because he is more adept with language, and followed the Roosevelt advice of “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” The Bush Administration, in contrast, has gone about the globe threatening anyone who raises opposition to its agenda and plans. But conquest and control has been a consistent objective of this country's leadership.
To make sense of the Bush Doctrine, it is important to look at the strategy more than the implementation. The execution of the strategy has been, and is likely to go down in the annals of history as, one of the greatest displays of ineptitude and mismanagement this country has ever seen. But back to the strategy. In order to accomplish a conquest, the central goal is the capture and control of vital resources. Those resources could be in the form of: a)land that has special value because of its volume, climate or strategic location; b)the populace that has special value because of shear numbers, special skills [such as military proficiency] or sophistication and education that would foster productivity by the conquered asset; or c) important natural resources that are valuable because of the universal demand for them and their linkage to global economic markets.
When analyzed in this context, it is easy to understand the desire of the Bush Administration to invade Iraq, topple the Saddam Hussein regime and establish a client state. Iraq is strategically located in the Middle East, and as a gateway between Arabian oil fields and Eastern Europe. The people of Iraq were considered some of the best educated and capable people of the region prior to the imposition of sanctions that strangled the lifeblood of the country and caused the highly trained professionals to flee. It goes without saying that Iraq possesses huge deposits and reserves of petroleum, [approximately 25% of the world reserves] a quantity that could manipulate or destabilize world markets if controlled and developed. The notion that Bush invaded Iraq because of some perceived threat to US citizens or national security has not only been debunked, it was absurd in the first place. The Downing Street Memos confirm that Bush and Blair discussed sending drone planes over Iraq with UN markings in order to provoke an attack, thereby providing justification for military intervention with UN support. Other documented reports from Cabinet level meetings show that Bush entered the White House with the agenda of regime change in Iraq.
When looked at from the vantage point of targets for conquest, the choice to invade Iraq seems the obvious one. The purported excuse for the attack, some form of "anticipatory self-defense," only serves to distract attention and confuse the real issues. One has to put aside considerations of international law, ethics and compassion for innocent civilians to pursue the Bush Doctrine. But Karl Rove has been so masterful in manipulating the public through a campaign of fear and hysteria, the country seems to have simply forgotten about moral principles and national integrity. The loss of innocent lives has not seemed to trouble the Bush Administration too much, whether the deaths took place abroad or in the Gulf Coast of teh United States. It also does not seem to matter to the White House if the deceased were US soldiers and citizens or Iraqis. The Bush Administration has always regarded international law as a tool to pressure other governments to follow Washington directives, and a mere inconvenience when it would appear to impede that plans of the Administration. [e.g., Geneva Conventions, Tokyo Protocol, NPT, and the list goes on]
That the Bush Doctrine can be articulated and explained does not make it legal. Neither does it suggest that the majority of American people support it. The approval ratings for Bush are stuck at around 33% and are unlikely to improve. If more people actually understood the strategy and Bush Doctrine, it is possible that those approval ratings could go even lower. It is ironic that a single political party controls the White House and Congress and yet the leadership is so out of touch with the majority of American people. The belief that the American people would approve of torture of prisoners, rape and murder of civilians, use of white phosphorous [napalm equivalent or worse] on civilians, kidnapping and indefinite detention of people without any right to contest the basis for their imprisonment seems to push the envelope. Even if the public had been inclined to endorse an immoral, illegal and foolhardy adventure such as invading another country and deposing its ruler [keep in mind that the US has done so before], one could hardly expect continued support when the job has been done so poorly.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Democracy and Free & Fair Elections
On Sunday [October 8, 2006], the New York Times reported that tens of thousands of Georgia voters recently received letters telling them they must show a photo ID to vote on Election Day despite repeated court rulings striking down Georgia's restrictive voter ID requirement.
The media is quickly prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theorists who suggest that concerted and planned measures to subvert the democratic and fair election process. The research and testing of the Diebold electronic voting machines showing the very real potential for manipulation of vote tabulations and “fixing” election results have received little consistent and in depth reportage. Substantial evidence of the ease with which security of the voting machines could be breached and compromised has been presented and verified by independent analysts. The voting tabulation could be manipulated to cause the machine to record votes cast for one candidate to be placed in another candidate’s column. Moreover, programming sophistication has been shown to enable the machine to impose these “adjustments” only when voting results are within certain parameters, thus rendering the manipulation more difficult to discover. Concerns that the majority party currently in control might stoop to unethical or illegal voting fraud measures to maintain that hold on to power are ignored or dismissed as paranoia.
But are these concerns so far fetched? When the Secretary of State in two critical election jurisdictions also served as the Campaign Chair of the Republican Party, and thereafter took deliberate and persistent actions to thwart investigations into alleged irregularities in election procedures, does manipulation seem out of the question? Katherine Harris took every measure that she could, including one or more that were enjoined by the Florida judiciary, to obstruct the full examination and counting of ballots. Kenneth Blackwell adopted measures and issued orders to restrict the investigation of voting irregularities. Complaints about the failure to provide adequate voting machines in heavily populated precincts that were traditionally Democratic went unresolved and largely unexamined by Blackwell’s office. Subsequently, both Harris and Blackwell have been rewarded by substantial GOP financial support backing their candidacy for higher elective office.
Stalin declared that those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. The federal legislation enacted by the GOP controlled Congress is resulting in the rapid expansion of electronic voting machines across the country. Many of these devices have no paper backup to provide for audit and verification that the tabulations reported electronically actually reflect the votes cast on Election Day. The development of technology may or may not keep pace with the development of methods to pervert the technology for unethical and illegal purposes. One very interesting suggestion was raised during the 2004 election. That suggestion was that international observers be employed to help assure that the election was conducted in a fair and legal manner. This is the same process that the US frequently urges when elections are conducted in developing countries or countries where the US Government has concerns about which regime will obtain control as a result of the election. However, the suggestion that similar independent international observation of the US election process and the potential that an objective report of the facts bearing upon whether the election was free and fair was treated almost as an insult and a preposterous idea. The only thing that is perhaps more absurd is the way in which the American public stands by quietly as the democratic institutions are continually and substantially eroded. The GOP stated objective is a “permanent majority” that controls the White House, Congress and the Judiciary.
Perhaps the question deserves being raised again. Is it possible that there could be a concerted effort to suppress voters or to manipulate voting results? Nawwww, never happen! This is America.
The media is quickly prepared to dismiss the conspiracy theorists who suggest that concerted and planned measures to subvert the democratic and fair election process. The research and testing of the Diebold electronic voting machines showing the very real potential for manipulation of vote tabulations and “fixing” election results have received little consistent and in depth reportage. Substantial evidence of the ease with which security of the voting machines could be breached and compromised has been presented and verified by independent analysts. The voting tabulation could be manipulated to cause the machine to record votes cast for one candidate to be placed in another candidate’s column. Moreover, programming sophistication has been shown to enable the machine to impose these “adjustments” only when voting results are within certain parameters, thus rendering the manipulation more difficult to discover. Concerns that the majority party currently in control might stoop to unethical or illegal voting fraud measures to maintain that hold on to power are ignored or dismissed as paranoia.
But are these concerns so far fetched? When the Secretary of State in two critical election jurisdictions also served as the Campaign Chair of the Republican Party, and thereafter took deliberate and persistent actions to thwart investigations into alleged irregularities in election procedures, does manipulation seem out of the question? Katherine Harris took every measure that she could, including one or more that were enjoined by the Florida judiciary, to obstruct the full examination and counting of ballots. Kenneth Blackwell adopted measures and issued orders to restrict the investigation of voting irregularities. Complaints about the failure to provide adequate voting machines in heavily populated precincts that were traditionally Democratic went unresolved and largely unexamined by Blackwell’s office. Subsequently, both Harris and Blackwell have been rewarded by substantial GOP financial support backing their candidacy for higher elective office.
Stalin declared that those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything. The federal legislation enacted by the GOP controlled Congress is resulting in the rapid expansion of electronic voting machines across the country. Many of these devices have no paper backup to provide for audit and verification that the tabulations reported electronically actually reflect the votes cast on Election Day. The development of technology may or may not keep pace with the development of methods to pervert the technology for unethical and illegal purposes. One very interesting suggestion was raised during the 2004 election. That suggestion was that international observers be employed to help assure that the election was conducted in a fair and legal manner. This is the same process that the US frequently urges when elections are conducted in developing countries or countries where the US Government has concerns about which regime will obtain control as a result of the election. However, the suggestion that similar independent international observation of the US election process and the potential that an objective report of the facts bearing upon whether the election was free and fair was treated almost as an insult and a preposterous idea. The only thing that is perhaps more absurd is the way in which the American public stands by quietly as the democratic institutions are continually and substantially eroded. The GOP stated objective is a “permanent majority” that controls the White House, Congress and the Judiciary.
Perhaps the question deserves being raised again. Is it possible that there could be a concerted effort to suppress voters or to manipulate voting results? Nawwww, never happen! This is America.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Diagnosis Democracy - Critical Internal Systemic Failure
The handling of American policy, foreign and domestic, poses serious risks to the vitality of democracy in this country. However, the potentially greater danger to a functional democracy is when the basic institutions that are supposed to balance the equation fail to act responsibly. The Constitutional counterbalance to an overly aggressive or out of control executive branch should come from Congressional and judicial oversight and action. The counterbalance to secrecy and violations of law and ethics by the government should come from professional and thorough investigative reporting. If the public is reasonably informed, survival of democracy ultimately depends upon the citizenry taking action to remove from power those elected representatives that break faith with their sworn public trust.
A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.
It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.
One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.
The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.
We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.
.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml
A great deal of ink has been spilled on the incestuous and complicit GOP Congress led by the same party as the President. Ethics, regard for the welfare of the public and even principles of common sense have taken a back seat to the accretion and consolidation of power. When we consider that the “investigation” of the potential cover up by Speaker Hastert is being conducted by the same committee that wanted to change the House Ethics Rules so that Tom Delay would not have to step down, despite a federal indictment, it seems obvious that the current Congress is too far gone to be effectively retrieved or “fixed” unless and until the GOP majority is broken. When and if that happens, there will at least be the possibility of holding accountable those who have breached public trust and sold out their constituents and the country. Accountability does not necessarily require mass witch hunts, congressional investigations and recriminations. More importantly, the change of majority would create a true check and balance, the risk of being taken to task for one’s actions. It would thereby require members of Congress to act with greater fidelity to the job description they were sent to Washington to accomplish.
An institutional failure of equal or greater magnitude has been the unwillingness or inability of the media to develop and maintain a focus and a level of professionalism that would justify their special protections under the Constitution. For years, investigative reporting has been in suspended animation. The media, whether because of its corporate ownership, its lack of professionalism or its lack of courage, failed to expose available facts and inform the public of misconduct and breaches of trust by the White House and Congress. When stories did surface, typically months or years after the percipient facts were available, they were given the kind of attention that a puppy gives to a stick that is thrown. The story would get a few moments of cursory attention and then the media would chase off after some other distraction. The attention that the media focused on the White House upon release of the Bob Woodward book [“State of Denial”] was quickly wiped from the media spotlight when the Foley – Hastert scandal broke, involving Congressional Pages and failure of Congressional leadership to discipline its members.
It is true that the degree and the number of issues in which the staggering incompetence and venality of the Bush Administration and the Frist-Hastert [Delay] Congress have betrayed the American people makes keeping up with all of the stories of misconduct difficult. But no one said the job was supposed to be an easy one. And there clearly should be sufficient media outlets and journalists to permit multitasking. Every reporter need not attempt to cover the same story. The prevailing attitude stems from laziness and unprofessionalism. Moreover, it could be persuasively argued that a strong, vigilant and vital press might have discouraged such blatant corruption and discouraged the proliferation of misconduct that prevails. But a critical function lacking in the media today is the professional ability to discern real news from distraction and propaganda.
One easy example is the reporting on the Bush and Cheney stump speeches being delivered on the campaign trail. Both toss out meaningless jingoistic rhetoric about “cut and run” and “soft on terrorism” and national security. These blatant attempts to reintroduce the hysteria of fear are transparent. However, the media seems incapable of the courage to step back and disengage from being used as a propaganda tool. The editors should follow a simple rule. If the speech is not delivered to the public and fails to contain any new substantive information, it does not deserve daily public airing. Unless Bush and Cheney include specific information that supports their name calling and demagoguery, the media should simply treat the speech or appearance as a footnote and a campaign stop on the President's or Vice President’s itinerary. In the case of the recent Bush and Cheney campaign speeches to closed partisan audiences, the "content" is no more than the typical pandering, sloganeering and baseless rhetorical attacks. The media should spend their time and energy developing and publishing stories that are fact based and which involve important issues and events that affect the public.
The same standard should hold true for press coverage of Democratic representative speeches. In general, however, speeches by Democrats that do involve specific reference to factual matters and documented malfeasance by the GOP Congress or the White House have seen little daylight in the press. Balance is needed, professionalism and a greater attention span is needed. The notion that an item is not necessarily news because Bush or Cheney opens his mouth need attention. Instead of reportage that is miles wide and a millimeter deep, we need more in-depth reporting and analysis of a narrower range of issues that are more central to the functioning of our democracy. Do we really need to hear more of Bush or Cheney accusing Democrats of treason because of their dissent? What is needed is specific information about why, after five years of rhetoric and control of the government by the same party, the American people are less safe or certainly no safer than they were on 9/11. We need factual reporting about specific successes and failures of the Administration in the rebuilding of the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The media needs to give us the facts, we can generate the spin ourselves.
We the People deserve better; and we can achieve better government. But we need at least minimal functioning or the fundamental institutions that make up our democratic form of government. If the current rate of deterioration and destruction of those institutions continues, the vital signs will fade and the loss will be irretrievable.
.........
footnote: If you think that PBS is giving you "balanced" news reporting, think again. See: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100806Y.shtml
Monday, October 02, 2006
Of Foxes and Chickens
The reader will hopefully forgive the barnyard analogies from a writer with solid Midwestern beginnings. But the recent events in Washington bring to mind obvious problems that arise when the party responsible for supervision and the public trust to safeguard the vulnerable is also a ruthless predator who regards those to be protected more as prey than as wards. Midwesterners call that putting the “fox in charge of protecting the chickens.”
Mark Foley, R-Fla, resigned from Congress on Friday following media disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year old former Page. The messages were inappropriate and contained sexual content that probably renders the actions of sending them to a minor over the internet illegal. Subsequent reporting indicates that there were other incidents in which similar communications and advances or overtures were made to other Pages by Foley. Apparently, the matter will now be investigated by the FBI more than a year after the occurrence was first reported. Congressional Pages are positions in which students are given the opportunity to experience how Congress does business, as they carry messages and do basic administrative or “gofer” tasks for the Members. To include being sexually propositioned by Members of Congress as part of that internship or curriculum would be a real stretch. Members of Congress are expected to treat Pages, who look up to them as potential role models, with respect. There is an office in the Capitol with a Congressional member specifically assigned to administer the Page program and to assure that these young people are supervised and not mistreated. In the case of Foley, the Congressman was a sexual predator instead of a mentor, teacher or role model.
But the analogy goes to another level. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was alerted to the situation and the problem of reported misconduct by Foley more than a year ago. We do not know how much more Hastert knew of Foley’s peccadilloes, but even the single publicly reported incident should have been sufficient notice to take serious action. Instead, Hastert’s office says they merely told Foley to “stay away” from that particular Page. The Speaker now professes outrage that a member of Congress has “breached a public trust,” but says nothing of the breach of trust he himself failed to uphold by taking action against Foley as soon as he became aware of the misconduct. Again, fox in charge of foxes roaming about in the henhouse.
Newt Gingrich came up with a purported excuse that would be laughable, were the offense not so serious. He claims that if Hastert had taken action when he first heard of the complaint by the parents of the 16 year old, Hastert might have been accused of “gay bashing.” We are talking about a mature adult in a position of power making improper sexual advances toward a 16 year old minor that was under his authority or influence. Whether same sex or heterosexual, the offense was equally abhorrent. Political affiliation too should have been totally irrelevant. Gingrich’s attempt to trivialize it indicates the level of moral bankruptcy to which Congressional behavioral standards have sunk.
That the matter could have been dealt with, even without as much public embarrassment, serves to demonstrate how jaded and corrupt Washington has become. Let’s look at a scenario. Speaker of the House and Majority Leader Hastert, after getting word of the parental complaint regarding the 16 year old former Page, walks into Foley’s office and closes the door. Hastert says to fellow Republican Congressman Foley:
That is how private and backroom deals are made in Congress. It is fair to assume that Hastert would have received Foley’s resignation “for personal and family reasons” within that week. Any subsequent actions by the 16 year old Page would have been directed to Foley as a private citizen. And some measure of discipline would have been maintained with respect to the behavior of Congressional members respecting Pages. But instead, the prevailing "standard" of discipline seems to be doing whatever you feel like, as long as you don’t get caught. Delay, Cunningham, Frist and a host of others provide us examples of how well Congress polices itself regarding ethical and moral conduct. Is it any wonder then why this Congress would pass legislation approving use of torture, authorizing searches and seizure of property and communications in violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and erecting a “Berlin Wall” over 1/3 the length of the border with Mexico? These are the “foxes” that we have placed in charge of our nation's business, the security and well being of us “chickens.” If you get an invitation to dinner from this Congress, you might first want to ask which of your neighbors is likely to be on the menu.
Mark Foley, R-Fla, resigned from Congress on Friday following media disclosure of sexually explicit e-mails he sent to a 16 year old former Page. The messages were inappropriate and contained sexual content that probably renders the actions of sending them to a minor over the internet illegal. Subsequent reporting indicates that there were other incidents in which similar communications and advances or overtures were made to other Pages by Foley. Apparently, the matter will now be investigated by the FBI more than a year after the occurrence was first reported. Congressional Pages are positions in which students are given the opportunity to experience how Congress does business, as they carry messages and do basic administrative or “gofer” tasks for the Members. To include being sexually propositioned by Members of Congress as part of that internship or curriculum would be a real stretch. Members of Congress are expected to treat Pages, who look up to them as potential role models, with respect. There is an office in the Capitol with a Congressional member specifically assigned to administer the Page program and to assure that these young people are supervised and not mistreated. In the case of Foley, the Congressman was a sexual predator instead of a mentor, teacher or role model.
But the analogy goes to another level. The Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, was alerted to the situation and the problem of reported misconduct by Foley more than a year ago. We do not know how much more Hastert knew of Foley’s peccadilloes, but even the single publicly reported incident should have been sufficient notice to take serious action. Instead, Hastert’s office says they merely told Foley to “stay away” from that particular Page. The Speaker now professes outrage that a member of Congress has “breached a public trust,” but says nothing of the breach of trust he himself failed to uphold by taking action against Foley as soon as he became aware of the misconduct. Again, fox in charge of foxes roaming about in the henhouse.
Newt Gingrich came up with a purported excuse that would be laughable, were the offense not so serious. He claims that if Hastert had taken action when he first heard of the complaint by the parents of the 16 year old, Hastert might have been accused of “gay bashing.” We are talking about a mature adult in a position of power making improper sexual advances toward a 16 year old minor that was under his authority or influence. Whether same sex or heterosexual, the offense was equally abhorrent. Political affiliation too should have been totally irrelevant. Gingrich’s attempt to trivialize it indicates the level of moral bankruptcy to which Congressional behavioral standards have sunk.
That the matter could have been dealt with, even without as much public embarrassment, serves to demonstrate how jaded and corrupt Washington has become. Let’s look at a scenario. Speaker of the House and Majority Leader Hastert, after getting word of the parental complaint regarding the 16 year old former Page, walks into Foley’s office and closes the door. Hastert says to fellow Republican Congressman Foley:
“It has been brought to my attention that there are allegations against you of sexual improprieties involving a former Page who is 16 years old. I am not accusing you of anything, nor am I judging you. I am not even asking you to explain to me what did or did not happen. What I am asking you to consider is whether, upon full investigation of this incident and any related conduct, and publication of the findings of that investigation, you would feel comfortable continuing to represent your district in Congress. You have one week to give me your answer to my question”
That is how private and backroom deals are made in Congress. It is fair to assume that Hastert would have received Foley’s resignation “for personal and family reasons” within that week. Any subsequent actions by the 16 year old Page would have been directed to Foley as a private citizen. And some measure of discipline would have been maintained with respect to the behavior of Congressional members respecting Pages. But instead, the prevailing "standard" of discipline seems to be doing whatever you feel like, as long as you don’t get caught. Delay, Cunningham, Frist and a host of others provide us examples of how well Congress polices itself regarding ethical and moral conduct. Is it any wonder then why this Congress would pass legislation approving use of torture, authorizing searches and seizure of property and communications in violations of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, and erecting a “Berlin Wall” over 1/3 the length of the border with Mexico? These are the “foxes” that we have placed in charge of our nation's business, the security and well being of us “chickens.” If you get an invitation to dinner from this Congress, you might first want to ask which of your neighbors is likely to be on the menu.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
None So Blind….
The United States has plunged itself and the world into an unstable mix of factors that threaten the destabilize the Middle East, spread warfare [conventional and unconventional] beyond the Middle East arena and re-enervate the deadly nuclear arms proliferation race. The threat to the world at large lies not only from the potential for misguided deliberate actions by world leaders, but also from inadvertent, accidental and unintended consequences of circumstances and actions that are being taken. When placed in an atmosphere of actual threats, aggression and bellicose rhetoric from the United States, so-called “rogue” states of North Korea, Iran, Syria and others targeted by US foreign policy salvos can easily be understood when they seek to escalate their arms capability as a deterrence to such threats. The reasoning is neither obscure nor far fetched. All the predicates for disaster are manifest and documented. We need only look at the situation with objective, unbiased and unclouded vision.
The Iraq invasion and occupation has been the subject of massive, but totally unnecessary, public “debate” regarding its bona fides. Despite all the smoke, propaganda and deception that has lasted over three years, the public is finally beginning to awaken to the facts that have been manifest firmly establishing that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence in order to orchestrate a predetermined strategy to invade Iraq for the purpose of regime change. That such actions were a clear violation of international law seems not to have sunken into the American consciousness generally.
A myriad of independent sources have put forward compelling evidence that the Bush Administration initiated the strategy of invasion prior to obtaining any resolution, authorization or approval from the UN or the US Congress. Internal memoranda, statements from former White House operatives and the Downing Street Memoranda all confirm that Bush intended to depose Saddam Hussein even prior to his inauguration. The manifest evidence also confirms that the Bush Administration knew that there were no viable “weapons of mass destruction” [WMD] or biological weapons systems in Iraq. Although the US had provided such weaponry to Iraq under the Bush I Administration, the years of sanctions and intervening events had eliminated the capacity of Saddam Hussein to maintain or advance these programs. Moreover, continual international monitoring gave the US and the world reasonable confidence that no such systems existed to seriously threaten Iraq’s neighbors, and certainly not the US.
The recently released book by Bob Woodward, “State of Denial,” further documents the faulty judgments by the White House and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in preparations for and execution of the invasion of Iraq. The White House continues to make public speeches about how well it is doing in the Iraqi conflict, and progress that is being made. They do this in the face of almost weekly reports from knowledgeable observers regarding the actual state of affairs in Iraq. Just a day or two ago, the entire city of Baghdad had to be placed on lockdown curfew. Despite reports of “progress” in training and preparing the Iraqi army and security forces, a recent report confirmed that only 25% of Iraqis in the national security forces reported for duty when deployed to defend Baghdad. That hardly sounds like “progress” even under the most generous characterization of the state of Iraqi readiness.
The ersatz “War on Terrorism” has been equally disestablished. Richard Clarke’s book amply documents the existence of information and briefings regarding the potential threat of an attack by Terrorists led or incited by Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden long before the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Other independent reports statements and documents from government officials from the Department of Defense and the CIA confirm the multiple failed attempts were made to raise the level of priority and urgency within the White House enclave. Public pronouncements by the White House and Condoleeza Rice have been, one after another, proven to be blatant lies. That the Administration would try to “spin” or whitewash the facts is not surprising. The remarkable aspect is the arrogance of doing so with clear knowledge that the disproof of their assertions is available through multiple corroborating sources. The discrepancies were not simply a difference of “interpretation,” the Administration attempted to gainsay documented facts relating to the very occurrence of certain events or existence of certain documents.
The most remarkable observation of all is the apparent willingness of the American public to turn a blind eye to the incompetence, corruption and blatant deception by the White House and Congressional leadership. The media has been far too complicit for too long in this process, by ignoring or burying stories that would disclose the deceit and failures of the Administration. However, now that the truth is appearing in print, and despite the Right Wing “talking heads” who continually try to downplay or discount the governmental incompetence and misconduct, the public still has not mobilized in any meaningful way to demand accountability of the White House and Congress. It would appear that the American public has bought into a kind of self delusional mindset that allows them to accept statements that they know to be untrue, as long as they appear to support some jingoistic mantra of “national security” or “war on terror.”
Hard evidence of torture used on US detainees is sidestepped or ignored as long as it was proclaimed necessary to fight terrorism. Never mind that torture of a crime under national and international law, that in most instances we know about the torture was inflicted upon people who were not terrorists and the Administration has been unable or unwilling to give the public any concrete evidence to support the claimed necessity for using illegal and morally reprehensible tactics. We ignore weekly reports of the devolution of Iraq into civil war and chaos as the President exhorts us to “stay the course” and continue to pour over $8 Billion per week of precious US resources and numerous lives of US military personnel into an Administration adventure that Bush cannot even hazard a guess as to when it can be brought to a successful conclusion. This is the case even if we allow the Administration to define a “successful” conclusion.
All of this is done in the name of the American people and with the lives of our children and citizens and with our precious financial resources. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, the American people and our children will pay the price for this willful disregard for many years to come.
The Iraq invasion and occupation has been the subject of massive, but totally unnecessary, public “debate” regarding its bona fides. Despite all the smoke, propaganda and deception that has lasted over three years, the public is finally beginning to awaken to the facts that have been manifest firmly establishing that the Bush Administration manipulated intelligence in order to orchestrate a predetermined strategy to invade Iraq for the purpose of regime change. That such actions were a clear violation of international law seems not to have sunken into the American consciousness generally.
A myriad of independent sources have put forward compelling evidence that the Bush Administration initiated the strategy of invasion prior to obtaining any resolution, authorization or approval from the UN or the US Congress. Internal memoranda, statements from former White House operatives and the Downing Street Memoranda all confirm that Bush intended to depose Saddam Hussein even prior to his inauguration. The manifest evidence also confirms that the Bush Administration knew that there were no viable “weapons of mass destruction” [WMD] or biological weapons systems in Iraq. Although the US had provided such weaponry to Iraq under the Bush I Administration, the years of sanctions and intervening events had eliminated the capacity of Saddam Hussein to maintain or advance these programs. Moreover, continual international monitoring gave the US and the world reasonable confidence that no such systems existed to seriously threaten Iraq’s neighbors, and certainly not the US.
The recently released book by Bob Woodward, “State of Denial,” further documents the faulty judgments by the White House and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in preparations for and execution of the invasion of Iraq. The White House continues to make public speeches about how well it is doing in the Iraqi conflict, and progress that is being made. They do this in the face of almost weekly reports from knowledgeable observers regarding the actual state of affairs in Iraq. Just a day or two ago, the entire city of Baghdad had to be placed on lockdown curfew. Despite reports of “progress” in training and preparing the Iraqi army and security forces, a recent report confirmed that only 25% of Iraqis in the national security forces reported for duty when deployed to defend Baghdad. That hardly sounds like “progress” even under the most generous characterization of the state of Iraqi readiness.
The ersatz “War on Terrorism” has been equally disestablished. Richard Clarke’s book amply documents the existence of information and briefings regarding the potential threat of an attack by Terrorists led or incited by Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden long before the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. Other independent reports statements and documents from government officials from the Department of Defense and the CIA confirm the multiple failed attempts were made to raise the level of priority and urgency within the White House enclave. Public pronouncements by the White House and Condoleeza Rice have been, one after another, proven to be blatant lies. That the Administration would try to “spin” or whitewash the facts is not surprising. The remarkable aspect is the arrogance of doing so with clear knowledge that the disproof of their assertions is available through multiple corroborating sources. The discrepancies were not simply a difference of “interpretation,” the Administration attempted to gainsay documented facts relating to the very occurrence of certain events or existence of certain documents.
The most remarkable observation of all is the apparent willingness of the American public to turn a blind eye to the incompetence, corruption and blatant deception by the White House and Congressional leadership. The media has been far too complicit for too long in this process, by ignoring or burying stories that would disclose the deceit and failures of the Administration. However, now that the truth is appearing in print, and despite the Right Wing “talking heads” who continually try to downplay or discount the governmental incompetence and misconduct, the public still has not mobilized in any meaningful way to demand accountability of the White House and Congress. It would appear that the American public has bought into a kind of self delusional mindset that allows them to accept statements that they know to be untrue, as long as they appear to support some jingoistic mantra of “national security” or “war on terror.”
Hard evidence of torture used on US detainees is sidestepped or ignored as long as it was proclaimed necessary to fight terrorism. Never mind that torture of a crime under national and international law, that in most instances we know about the torture was inflicted upon people who were not terrorists and the Administration has been unable or unwilling to give the public any concrete evidence to support the claimed necessity for using illegal and morally reprehensible tactics. We ignore weekly reports of the devolution of Iraq into civil war and chaos as the President exhorts us to “stay the course” and continue to pour over $8 Billion per week of precious US resources and numerous lives of US military personnel into an Administration adventure that Bush cannot even hazard a guess as to when it can be brought to a successful conclusion. This is the case even if we allow the Administration to define a “successful” conclusion.
All of this is done in the name of the American people and with the lives of our children and citizens and with our precious financial resources. There are none so blind as those who will not see. Unfortunately, the American people and our children will pay the price for this willful disregard for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)