The US Government response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster and the failure to provide reasonable relief to the multitude of hurricane victims has been a festering sore that besmirches America's history of compassionate response to natural disasters, in this country and throughout the world. The taint is all the more evident because this particular disaster happened right at home, where relief should be the easiest to deliver. Yet nearly two years after Katrina struck, even the most solicitous evaluation of the Bush Administration’s response would have to call it a “disaster.” Temporary housing purchased for millions of dollars sat rusting in Arkansas and was never delivered to families in hurricane stricken areas. Millions of pounds of food and supplies intended for victims were never delivered. Reconstruction has proceeded at a snail’s pace with red tape being the rule rather than the exception. Insurance companies have been given free license to initially deny claims that turned out to be valid and thereby rake in profits on cash flow at the expense of delays to distressed hurricane victims. Many of the poor and Black victims lack the expertise of resources to challenge the claim denials and never receive relief. And the itemization of documented failures stretches on.
The failures take on an additional dimension when the US Government actions that blocked the delivery of hundreds of millions of dollars in aid pledged and provided by allies and foreign sources are also considered. Simply put, if the Bush Administration was incapable of providing the necessary assistance to hurricane victims, obstruction of help provided by other sources was a cruel tragedy. Consider the following Washington Post article:
Only a fraction of promised aid collected
Allies offered $854 million in cash and in oil that was to be sold for cash. But only $40 million has been used so far for disaster victims or reconstruction, according to U.S. officials and contractors. Most of the aid went uncollected, including $400 million worth of oil. Some offers were withdrawn or redirected to private groups such as the Red Cross. The rest has been delayed by red tape and bureaucratic limits on how it can be spent. In addition, valuable supplies and services -- such as cell phone systems, medicine and cruise ships -- were delayed or declined because the government could not handle them. In some cases, supplies were wasted.
[WP April 29, 2007]
The President of the United States first praised the incompetent performance of FEMA head Brown, and subsequently fired him after his utter incompetence was publicly exposed. Bush interrupted critical relief efforts to stage a national TV "photo opportunity" to solemnly “promise” bold action to help New Orleans and the Gulf Coast recover from the disaster. After the cameras departed and the relief personnel were allowed to get back to their tasks of rescue and relief, the primary “bold action” by the Administration was to point fingers and blame state and local officials for recovery problems and delays. This took place despite the billions of dollars appropriated by Congress and made available to the Bush Administration for hurricane disaster relief, recovery and reconstruction.
When the Mayor of New Orleans and other critics of the Bush Administration response efforts posed the quandary whether the failure to provide relief and recovery assistance was linked to the fact that most of the victims were poor and non-white, the Administration supporters were quick to take offense. Yet these same sycophants are at a loss to explain or reconcile the abysmal failures of the Administration. The failures could be an example of incompetence of epic proportions by the officials Bush has assigned to the task [Other US Administrations have delivered more effective relief to flood and earthquake victims of other countries halfway around the globe]. Alternatively, the failures could be explained by willful indifference and a deliberate policy decision to place a lower priority to delivering the necessary relief because of the lack of political gain Bush perceives from providing aid to constituencies that are unlikely to support his Administration and political party. Such speculation is not cynical, but rather logical and common sense analysis of facts and circumstances that are extremely difficult to reconcile.
When the leadership of the country has the obligation, financial resources and the logistical support to come to the aid of its citizens when they are most vulnerable and fails to do so, the failure is inexcusable. Whether the reason for the Administration's atrocious failure to provide the promised aid is incompetence or intentional neglect the end result is an embarrassment for the United States. The compounding of that failure by blocking others from addressing that vacuum of leadership by providing critically needed aid is a double embarrassment. If the failure is due to incompetence, then the Administration officials should immediately resign and allow someone competent to take their place. If the failure is a deliberate act motivated by petty political agendas, the officials and their superiors who condone such actions should be impeached and removed from office for gross dereliction of duty. The American people should be ashamed not only of their leaders for such dramatic failures, but also ashamed of themselves for failing to hold the responsible leaders accountable.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
The Right Tools For The Job
Looking over the past decade or so, domestic terror incidents in the United States have arisen from numerous multiple shooting deaths in school settings, random sniper shootings in the Washington, DC area, truck bombing at a federal building and commercial airplanes crashed into buildings. Two of those, the two worst attacks in the history of the country, have occurred during the tenure of George W. Bush as President.
By far, the greatest number of tragic terrorist incidents in this country have arisen from incursion by gunmen into what was previously considered relatively safe area and subsequent shooting sprees that caused the indiscriminate deaths of civilians.
In response to the problem, we are now required to strip down to our underwear and socks, forced to go to the airport hours early to stand in seemingly interminable lines and prohibited from taking a full tube of toothpaste on an airplane. Our phone and mail privacy is sacrificed in the name of a "war on terror" and we are not supposed to criticize the Administration (we can actually be jailed if we do so in an airport). In addition, we are spending half a trillion dollars on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, thousands of miles from American soil. These measures are supposed to keep us safe from terrorist attacks.
Make no mistake, this writer is not opposed to the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears. It is but one of the guarantees of the Constitution. But I do wonder, in those rare moments of reflection, why one right is deemed so superior to the others. Just pondering the issues, why is it acceptable to constrain the Constitutional rights of free speech, privacy, interstate travel and association, while leaving unencumbered the right to bear arms? After all, no spoken word or e-mail has directly caused a single death in any of these terrorist attacks on American soil. Yet guns and munitions have been involved in almost every one, and directly responsible for the deaths.
I am not of the extremist view that all of these terrorist events could have been prevented. Hindsight is always more perceptive than foresight. However, there does seem to be a problem with Administration priorities and methods that is not unlike serving soup with a fork. After Columbine, there was a reasoned basis for developing measures to identify troubled students and to intervene, if possible, before a violent incident developed. In addition, the easy access that the two shooters in Columbine had to weapons and ammunition called for some measures to require greater responsibility on the part of gun owners to lock up their weapons.
Neither of these measures has been seriously addressed in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, although the Administration has expended billions of dollars for the alleged purpose of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks. More ironically, if greater attention had been placed upon schools, the training of the jihadi pilots in the 9/11 attack might have created enough concern for the FBI to actually do something with the information that they had prior to the attack. The Virginia Tech incident is too fresh to analyze objectively, but there is ample evidence that the shooter was previously identified as a problematic individual meriting intervention.
Of course, it would be unreasonable to suggest that employing the tools mentioned would prevent all future attacks. Those that plot terror are cunning and adaptive. But it is not unreasonable to expect our President and his "experts" to examine the common elements that are associated with the attacks on American soil and take counter terrorism measures to address those factors. Such efforts should be a much higher priority than some foreign escapade that has no concrete bearing upon protecting Americans from danger. The principal terrorism impact of the Iraq occupation has been to generate a much larger number of jihadis who would like to attack America if they only had the means and opportunity. At present, and for the foreseeable future, their only opportunity lies in attacking American troops in their own country sent there by President Bush. But much of their fervor comes from the fact that America is occupying their country and controlling its government, a grievance that would dissipate with departure of the US presence.
A fair assessment of the job that our President is doing suggests that he not only is using the wrong tools for the job he is supposed to be doing, but the tools that he has chosen are being used ineptly. Picture the cook furiously serving soup with a fork. No matter how sincere he might be, or how vigorously he works at what he is doing, the simple truth is that he is not going to get the job done.
By far, the greatest number of tragic terrorist incidents in this country have arisen from incursion by gunmen into what was previously considered relatively safe area and subsequent shooting sprees that caused the indiscriminate deaths of civilians.
In response to the problem, we are now required to strip down to our underwear and socks, forced to go to the airport hours early to stand in seemingly interminable lines and prohibited from taking a full tube of toothpaste on an airplane. Our phone and mail privacy is sacrificed in the name of a "war on terror" and we are not supposed to criticize the Administration (we can actually be jailed if we do so in an airport). In addition, we are spending half a trillion dollars on the invasion and occupation of Iraq, thousands of miles from American soil. These measures are supposed to keep us safe from terrorist attacks.
Make no mistake, this writer is not opposed to the right to bear arms or the right to arm bears. It is but one of the guarantees of the Constitution. But I do wonder, in those rare moments of reflection, why one right is deemed so superior to the others. Just pondering the issues, why is it acceptable to constrain the Constitutional rights of free speech, privacy, interstate travel and association, while leaving unencumbered the right to bear arms? After all, no spoken word or e-mail has directly caused a single death in any of these terrorist attacks on American soil. Yet guns and munitions have been involved in almost every one, and directly responsible for the deaths.
I am not of the extremist view that all of these terrorist events could have been prevented. Hindsight is always more perceptive than foresight. However, there does seem to be a problem with Administration priorities and methods that is not unlike serving soup with a fork. After Columbine, there was a reasoned basis for developing measures to identify troubled students and to intervene, if possible, before a violent incident developed. In addition, the easy access that the two shooters in Columbine had to weapons and ammunition called for some measures to require greater responsibility on the part of gun owners to lock up their weapons.
Neither of these measures has been seriously addressed in the wake of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center, although the Administration has expended billions of dollars for the alleged purpose of keeping America safe from terrorist attacks. More ironically, if greater attention had been placed upon schools, the training of the jihadi pilots in the 9/11 attack might have created enough concern for the FBI to actually do something with the information that they had prior to the attack. The Virginia Tech incident is too fresh to analyze objectively, but there is ample evidence that the shooter was previously identified as a problematic individual meriting intervention.
Of course, it would be unreasonable to suggest that employing the tools mentioned would prevent all future attacks. Those that plot terror are cunning and adaptive. But it is not unreasonable to expect our President and his "experts" to examine the common elements that are associated with the attacks on American soil and take counter terrorism measures to address those factors. Such efforts should be a much higher priority than some foreign escapade that has no concrete bearing upon protecting Americans from danger. The principal terrorism impact of the Iraq occupation has been to generate a much larger number of jihadis who would like to attack America if they only had the means and opportunity. At present, and for the foreseeable future, their only opportunity lies in attacking American troops in their own country sent there by President Bush. But much of their fervor comes from the fact that America is occupying their country and controlling its government, a grievance that would dissipate with departure of the US presence.
A fair assessment of the job that our President is doing suggests that he not only is using the wrong tools for the job he is supposed to be doing, but the tools that he has chosen are being used ineptly. Picture the cook furiously serving soup with a fork. No matter how sincere he might be, or how vigorously he works at what he is doing, the simple truth is that he is not going to get the job done.
Coin of the Realm
In each regime, there is some item or attribute that is deemed precious to the powers that be, "the ruling elite." It is the surrogate for wealth and power and may yield actual wealth and status for the ones that hold and use it wisely. It is called the “coin of the realm.” It is deemed so precious that some will do almost anything to obtain it. In the Bush Administration, that coin has been revealed as blind, unflagging political partisanship and loyalty. It is the thing that induced Scooter Libby to illegally disclose the identity of a covert CIA operative and later to commit perjury to obstruct a federal investigation of that leak. Despite a felony conviction, it is also the thing that assures Libby of an eventual Presidential pardon.
The coin of the realm is also evident in recent firings of eight US Attorneys by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Each new piece of evidence that appears as the drama unfolds in the Congressional Investigation points to a purely partisan agenda: (a) to remove US Attorneys who refused to blindly give in to pressure from the White House and the Justice department to prosecute cases against Democratic opponents, and (b) to remove entirely competent incumbents simply to make room for more “loyal” partisan replacements.
In a New York Times Article, Adam Cohen details a case in which the flip side of that coin was displayed. In the highly important swing state of Wisconsin, the US Attorney for the Milwaukee district usurped the authority of the Madison US Attorney to prosecute a female civil service employee for allegedly steering a travel services contract to a company owned by a contributor to the Democratic Governor’s campaign. The woman's image and conviction were used by the GOP opponent in highly negative campaign ads that depicted her as a convict and falsely linking her as an "aide" to the Governor. Recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit summarily threw out the conviction on appeal [long after the election – however, the Democratic Governor was re-elected] stating that the evidence upon which the US Attorney had prosecuted the case was “beyond thin.” The court ordered her release even before the opinion was written.
One might conclude that a federal prosecution against a civil servant (appointed by a republican Governor) who knew nothing about the campaign contributions of the contract award recipient, and who was only one of several commission members who awarded the contract to the lowest bidder in a public process, must have had some ulterior motive. Given the mountain of legal evidence indicating innocence and the absence of any sound legal theory, one might also conclude that the prosecuting US Attorney, Mr. Biskupic, was either motivated by an improper purpose or grossly incompetent. Either basis would be sufficient for removing a person from the important post of US Attorney.
If we look to the prosecution theory advanced by Mr. Biskupic for the underlying motivation, we again see evidence of the coin of the realm. As Adam Cohen reported, the Court of Appeals openly criticized Biskupic for not even having a viable legal theory, much less and arguable position. In order to obtain a conviction, the woman must have sought or obtained personal gain from some illegal act, which this woman clearly had not. But Mr. Biskupic alleged that she gained by obtaining "political advantage for her superiors" and that in pleasing them she "enhanced job security for herself."
The apparent mystery regarding the motive for the false prosecution and use of that prosecution in the political campaign dissolves. Whether as a result of direct orders or intense pressure to prosecute cases to damage political opponents in swing states, Biskupic was clearly seeking to demonstrate to his superiors that he was a loyal and steadfast partisan who would forsake personal reputation, legal standards and ethics to obtain "political advantage for his superiors" and to "enhance job security for himself." In the midst of the firing of eight other US Attorneys purportedly for “performance issues” after supposedly ranking all attorneys, Mr. Biskupic kept his US Attorney post.
And it was done so quietly that you could hear a coin drop.
The coin of the realm is also evident in recent firings of eight US Attorneys by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. Each new piece of evidence that appears as the drama unfolds in the Congressional Investigation points to a purely partisan agenda: (a) to remove US Attorneys who refused to blindly give in to pressure from the White House and the Justice department to prosecute cases against Democratic opponents, and (b) to remove entirely competent incumbents simply to make room for more “loyal” partisan replacements.
In a New York Times Article, Adam Cohen details a case in which the flip side of that coin was displayed. In the highly important swing state of Wisconsin, the US Attorney for the Milwaukee district usurped the authority of the Madison US Attorney to prosecute a female civil service employee for allegedly steering a travel services contract to a company owned by a contributor to the Democratic Governor’s campaign. The woman's image and conviction were used by the GOP opponent in highly negative campaign ads that depicted her as a convict and falsely linking her as an "aide" to the Governor. Recently, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit summarily threw out the conviction on appeal [long after the election – however, the Democratic Governor was re-elected] stating that the evidence upon which the US Attorney had prosecuted the case was “beyond thin.” The court ordered her release even before the opinion was written.
One might conclude that a federal prosecution against a civil servant (appointed by a republican Governor) who knew nothing about the campaign contributions of the contract award recipient, and who was only one of several commission members who awarded the contract to the lowest bidder in a public process, must have had some ulterior motive. Given the mountain of legal evidence indicating innocence and the absence of any sound legal theory, one might also conclude that the prosecuting US Attorney, Mr. Biskupic, was either motivated by an improper purpose or grossly incompetent. Either basis would be sufficient for removing a person from the important post of US Attorney.
If we look to the prosecution theory advanced by Mr. Biskupic for the underlying motivation, we again see evidence of the coin of the realm. As Adam Cohen reported, the Court of Appeals openly criticized Biskupic for not even having a viable legal theory, much less and arguable position. In order to obtain a conviction, the woman must have sought or obtained personal gain from some illegal act, which this woman clearly had not. But Mr. Biskupic alleged that she gained by obtaining "political advantage for her superiors" and that in pleasing them she "enhanced job security for herself."
The apparent mystery regarding the motive for the false prosecution and use of that prosecution in the political campaign dissolves. Whether as a result of direct orders or intense pressure to prosecute cases to damage political opponents in swing states, Biskupic was clearly seeking to demonstrate to his superiors that he was a loyal and steadfast partisan who would forsake personal reputation, legal standards and ethics to obtain "political advantage for his superiors" and to "enhance job security for himself." In the midst of the firing of eight other US Attorneys purportedly for “performance issues” after supposedly ranking all attorneys, Mr. Biskupic kept his US Attorney post.
And it was done so quietly that you could hear a coin drop.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Spotting Terrorism as Child's Play
On the instructional segment of the educational children’s show “Sesame Street,” there was a popular song that prompted the viewer to guess which things were alike and which were not like the other. Even at the elementary school level, children were taught the basic concept of identifying objects or events that are the same or similar. Yet it seems that the FBI, under the current Administration has yet to grasp the concept or ability to determine similarities. For example, let us examine two recent news stories:
BAGHDAD - Six bombs exploded in predominantly Shiite sections of the capital Sunday, killing at least 45 people in a renewal of sectarian carnage that set back the U.S. push to pacify Baghdad. … And in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, health officials raised the toll from a bombing Saturday close to one of the sect’s most sacred shrines, saying 47 people were killed and 224 wounded.
And,
BLACKSBURG, Va. - A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at a college in Virginia on Monday, killing at least 30 people in the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history. The gunman also was killed, and more than a dozen other people were injured. … Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks but that they had not determined a link to the shootings.
According to most observers, these two incidents would be considered similar acts of terrorism. On most standardized intelligence tests, these incidents would be grouped as similar. Yet the FBI has determined, at least so far, that they are NOT the same type of incident. Regarding the Blacksburg, VA incident, the following official report was given:
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said there was no immediate evidence to suggest it was a terrorist attack, “but all avenues will be explored.”
The significance of the aptitude for determining similarities is more than academic. President Bush has insisted that we are in a “war on terror” and that many extraordinary measures are needed to fight this war. He has declared that the “enemy” must be fought and defeated, even at the cost of our civil liberties and a substantial drain of economic resources that could be used to improve health care in this nation, as but one alternative priority.
How then, are we to defeat this formidable “enemy” when the official agents and front line organization entrusted with protecting us from this threat seems unable to identify the enemy or an act of terrorism? Why is a bomb threat or a bombing in Iraq an act of terrorism, but not when it occurs on domestic soil at a public university where thousands of American students gather every day? Why does the massacre of dozens of civilians in a public area or shrine in Iraq get labeled as terrorism, but the massacre of dozens of students in a public university in Virginia is not identified as terrorism?
Is it any wonder that the so called “war on terror” is going so poorly when it appears that those responsible for uncovering plots and preventing attacks against Americans do not even know how to identify an incident of terrorism? It is fair to assume that knowing what one is looking for helps the process of discovery. The British Government has abandoned the “war on terror” rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Instead, they are focusing their efforts on substantive investigative and forensic police methods, in cooperation with the law enforcement organizations of other nations, to ferret out plots and conspiracies of criminals to commit acts of violence that threaten the public.
Many experts have argued that the so called “war on terror” rhetoric is primarily a political gambit to inflame or incite the public. They say that to have a true “war” there must be a definable “enemy” that is a nation or nationalist entity. Only then can one determine who we are at war with and whether a war is being won or lost. In contrast, they point to political ploys like the President Johnson “war on poverty.” Poverty is not a cohesive entity or nation with which we could wage war. Since it obviously still exists, as it did prior to that “war,” we must have lost any such war that there might have been. Similarly, there have been egregious and horrible acts of violence and terrorism. One cannot group the methods, the reasons or the assailants into a cohesive entity that can be fought and defeated. This does not diminish the tragedy and horror caused by these senseless act of violence. It does, however, amplify the need to be clear and honest about the nature of the threat and the proper measures used to combat and prevent their occurrence, when possible.
To recognize the obvious similarity of two incidents described above would be child’s play. It takes only simple intelligence that is devoid of delusion or deceitful intent. For the Administration to exploit public fear for political purposes, while failing to uphold one of its primary Constitutional responsibilities of providing for the safety of American citizens is reprehensible. To divert attention and vital resources to a war of choice, when there is no actual threat of immediate danger to America is a travesty. Until the Bush Administration first gains the ability to recognize a terrorist incident when it occurs, and then realizes that its approach and methods are ill suited to preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens, the so called “war on terror” of this Administration will be a very costly failure in both lives and dollars.
BAGHDAD - Six bombs exploded in predominantly Shiite sections of the capital Sunday, killing at least 45 people in a renewal of sectarian carnage that set back the U.S. push to pacify Baghdad. … And in the holy Shiite city of Karbala, health officials raised the toll from a bombing Saturday close to one of the sect’s most sacred shrines, saying 47 people were killed and 224 wounded.
And,
BLACKSBURG, Va. - A gunman opened fire in a dorm and classroom at a college in Virginia on Monday, killing at least 30 people in the deadliest campus shooting in U.S. history. The gunman also was killed, and more than a dozen other people were injured. … Police said there had been bomb threats on campus over the past two weeks but that they had not determined a link to the shootings.
According to most observers, these two incidents would be considered similar acts of terrorism. On most standardized intelligence tests, these incidents would be grouped as similar. Yet the FBI has determined, at least so far, that they are NOT the same type of incident. Regarding the Blacksburg, VA incident, the following official report was given:
FBI spokesman Richard Kolko in Washington said there was no immediate evidence to suggest it was a terrorist attack, “but all avenues will be explored.”
The significance of the aptitude for determining similarities is more than academic. President Bush has insisted that we are in a “war on terror” and that many extraordinary measures are needed to fight this war. He has declared that the “enemy” must be fought and defeated, even at the cost of our civil liberties and a substantial drain of economic resources that could be used to improve health care in this nation, as but one alternative priority.
How then, are we to defeat this formidable “enemy” when the official agents and front line organization entrusted with protecting us from this threat seems unable to identify the enemy or an act of terrorism? Why is a bomb threat or a bombing in Iraq an act of terrorism, but not when it occurs on domestic soil at a public university where thousands of American students gather every day? Why does the massacre of dozens of civilians in a public area or shrine in Iraq get labeled as terrorism, but the massacre of dozens of students in a public university in Virginia is not identified as terrorism?
Is it any wonder that the so called “war on terror” is going so poorly when it appears that those responsible for uncovering plots and preventing attacks against Americans do not even know how to identify an incident of terrorism? It is fair to assume that knowing what one is looking for helps the process of discovery. The British Government has abandoned the “war on terror” rhetoric of the Bush Administration. Instead, they are focusing their efforts on substantive investigative and forensic police methods, in cooperation with the law enforcement organizations of other nations, to ferret out plots and conspiracies of criminals to commit acts of violence that threaten the public.
Many experts have argued that the so called “war on terror” rhetoric is primarily a political gambit to inflame or incite the public. They say that to have a true “war” there must be a definable “enemy” that is a nation or nationalist entity. Only then can one determine who we are at war with and whether a war is being won or lost. In contrast, they point to political ploys like the President Johnson “war on poverty.” Poverty is not a cohesive entity or nation with which we could wage war. Since it obviously still exists, as it did prior to that “war,” we must have lost any such war that there might have been. Similarly, there have been egregious and horrible acts of violence and terrorism. One cannot group the methods, the reasons or the assailants into a cohesive entity that can be fought and defeated. This does not diminish the tragedy and horror caused by these senseless act of violence. It does, however, amplify the need to be clear and honest about the nature of the threat and the proper measures used to combat and prevent their occurrence, when possible.
To recognize the obvious similarity of two incidents described above would be child’s play. It takes only simple intelligence that is devoid of delusion or deceitful intent. For the Administration to exploit public fear for political purposes, while failing to uphold one of its primary Constitutional responsibilities of providing for the safety of American citizens is reprehensible. To divert attention and vital resources to a war of choice, when there is no actual threat of immediate danger to America is a travesty. Until the Bush Administration first gains the ability to recognize a terrorist incident when it occurs, and then realizes that its approach and methods are ill suited to preventing terrorist attacks against American citizens, the so called “war on terror” of this Administration will be a very costly failure in both lives and dollars.
Friday, April 13, 2007
The Lessons of the Past
One characteristics of the Dick Cheney philosophy is his adamant belief that Richard Nixon was justified in his efforts to use any means to increase his own Presidential power, to use questionable tactics to manipulate the political and electoral process, and to use any means possible to cover up those actions. Most of the American people of a certain age are well aware of how that philosophy played out for Nixon.
Recent events involving the investigation of the Justice Department firing of US Attorneys has shed some light on the machinations of the White House, and particularly on those of White House political “guru” Karl Rove. We did know, despite the GOP controlled Congress that turned a blind eye to almost every action by the White House, that the President and Vice President were intent upon developing an “Imperial Presidency” under a “unitary executive” theory concocted by conservative think tanks. The abrogation of civil rights under the guise of a “war on terror,” the circumvention of the law to use domestic spying programs to amass huge amounts of confidential data on innocent Americans without their knowledge, the profligate use of signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress without using the Constitutionally prescribed veto and the Valerie Plame matter are all vivid examples of this arrogation of power. What we were not aware of, however, was the extent to which a “shadow government” was operating in secret in the White House and in violation of the Presidential Records Act. That Act requires that all records involving White House business be retained.
We now know that Karl Rove and many other White House employees were conducting business and communicating regarding matters within the President’s purview, including those he acted upon and those coming to the White House that may have been kept from him by subordinates. These Republican National Committee e-mail accounts have been highlighted because they contain information about the communication and interaction between the White House and the Justice Department regarding the process and decision to fire the US Attorneys. All such communications should have been conducted through regular channels that are routinely archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. The decision to send communications regarding official business through the alternate e-mail system renders such communications inherently suspect, because that decision engendered the intent to circumvent the archival process. If it is legitimate and legal, why try to hide it in a manner that you know is illegal?
And now the process of tracking those e-mails has led to the assertion that the e-mails may be “missing” from the RNC computers. This is eerily reminiscent of the drama that played out when Rosemary Woods, Secretary to Nixon, disclosed that certain critical tapes of Oval Office discussions were missing. This included the 18 minute “gap” that was significant evidence in the impeachment of Nixon. The interplay between the Nixon White House and the illegal dirty tricks of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President [“CREEP”] left an historic scar on the psyche of the nation. Prior to that time, most Americans believed that their President might be misguided or inept in handling White House matters, and they understood that politics is a rough business, but they did not expect that the President would stoop to illegal conduct and attempted cover-ups. No American of any political persuasion likes to think of their President as a liar and a criminal who would run a shadow government in order to circumvent the Constitution.
Apparently, Bush and Cheney have failed to learn the lessons of the past. Through their beloved “Turd Blossom” [Bush’s nickname for Karl Rove], they have managed to rub salt in the egregious wound in America’s psyche by repeating the mistakes of the Nixon Administration. We began to see the deceitful and conniving behavior in the evidence presented in the Scooter Libby case. But with each new revelation the picture seems to worsen and confirm White House adherence to a philosophy of arrogance, petty politics and disregard for the law. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, it is said, are oft doomed to repeat it.
Recent events involving the investigation of the Justice Department firing of US Attorneys has shed some light on the machinations of the White House, and particularly on those of White House political “guru” Karl Rove. We did know, despite the GOP controlled Congress that turned a blind eye to almost every action by the White House, that the President and Vice President were intent upon developing an “Imperial Presidency” under a “unitary executive” theory concocted by conservative think tanks. The abrogation of civil rights under the guise of a “war on terror,” the circumvention of the law to use domestic spying programs to amass huge amounts of confidential data on innocent Americans without their knowledge, the profligate use of signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress without using the Constitutionally prescribed veto and the Valerie Plame matter are all vivid examples of this arrogation of power. What we were not aware of, however, was the extent to which a “shadow government” was operating in secret in the White House and in violation of the Presidential Records Act. That Act requires that all records involving White House business be retained.
We now know that Karl Rove and many other White House employees were conducting business and communicating regarding matters within the President’s purview, including those he acted upon and those coming to the White House that may have been kept from him by subordinates. These Republican National Committee e-mail accounts have been highlighted because they contain information about the communication and interaction between the White House and the Justice Department regarding the process and decision to fire the US Attorneys. All such communications should have been conducted through regular channels that are routinely archived in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. The decision to send communications regarding official business through the alternate e-mail system renders such communications inherently suspect, because that decision engendered the intent to circumvent the archival process. If it is legitimate and legal, why try to hide it in a manner that you know is illegal?
And now the process of tracking those e-mails has led to the assertion that the e-mails may be “missing” from the RNC computers. This is eerily reminiscent of the drama that played out when Rosemary Woods, Secretary to Nixon, disclosed that certain critical tapes of Oval Office discussions were missing. This included the 18 minute “gap” that was significant evidence in the impeachment of Nixon. The interplay between the Nixon White House and the illegal dirty tricks of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President [“CREEP”] left an historic scar on the psyche of the nation. Prior to that time, most Americans believed that their President might be misguided or inept in handling White House matters, and they understood that politics is a rough business, but they did not expect that the President would stoop to illegal conduct and attempted cover-ups. No American of any political persuasion likes to think of their President as a liar and a criminal who would run a shadow government in order to circumvent the Constitution.
Apparently, Bush and Cheney have failed to learn the lessons of the past. Through their beloved “Turd Blossom” [Bush’s nickname for Karl Rove], they have managed to rub salt in the egregious wound in America’s psyche by repeating the mistakes of the Nixon Administration. We began to see the deceitful and conniving behavior in the evidence presented in the Scooter Libby case. But with each new revelation the picture seems to worsen and confirm White House adherence to a philosophy of arrogance, petty politics and disregard for the law. Those who fail to learn the lessons of history, it is said, are oft doomed to repeat it.
The Fall of Imus
Like Icarus of mythology, Don Imus allowed his own pride and arrogance to take him to heights and to places that he should not have gone. The result in Icarus’ case was that he flew too close to the sun and was destroyed. Imus flew into the furnace of public controversy over the mass commercialization of sexism and racism. The result is that he was fired by CBS network executive Leslie Moonves. We probably will never know for certain whether the firing was a result of a moral decision to reject the type of broadcasting material and the misogynist, racist and sexist segment of the population that feels entertained by the Imus brand of “humor,” or whether the decision was actually driven by the exodus of sponsors from the show. Moonves stated publicly that his decision was motivated by a desire to impact the culture in which Imus’ objectionable behavior flourishes. If we take Moonves at his word, then there is hope that the major networks can maintain some level of responsibility and accountability in relation to its national programming.
Lest anyone think that I am opposed to First Amendment freedoms, I would clarify that I do not believe that anyone but Don Imus should prevent Imus from saying what is in his mind and heart. Every citizen has that right. But the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to have one’s views broadcast over national airwaves and commercialized. Imus is free to stand on a corner soapbox and spew his brand of humor. He can record podcasts and internet videos that are available to those affirmatively seeking out such material. The CBS decision will not stamp out the vocally racist and sexist elements in our society. The fact that pandering to the basest elements of our culture can be profitable is no justification for abdicating the responsibility over what types of material is broadcast on national airwaves.
Imus expressed some doubt on the Rev. Al Sharpton radio program about whether he can reform or “clean up his act.” That process, consistent with the First Amendment, is up to Imus. But perhaps Don Imus can acknowledge that Moonves did the right thing for the right reason, and that brutally offending segments of the population based upon racist and sexist attitudes for sport and humor is neither funny nor as commercially viable as it once was. If Don Imus is the talented broadcaster and entertainer that many admire, and if what he said is not what is in his heart, then he may be able to rise from the ashes and begin anew on the commercial airwaves. Unlike Icarus, he has a second chance.
Lest anyone think that I am opposed to First Amendment freedoms, I would clarify that I do not believe that anyone but Don Imus should prevent Imus from saying what is in his mind and heart. Every citizen has that right. But the First Amendment does not guarantee the right to have one’s views broadcast over national airwaves and commercialized. Imus is free to stand on a corner soapbox and spew his brand of humor. He can record podcasts and internet videos that are available to those affirmatively seeking out such material. The CBS decision will not stamp out the vocally racist and sexist elements in our society. The fact that pandering to the basest elements of our culture can be profitable is no justification for abdicating the responsibility over what types of material is broadcast on national airwaves.
Imus expressed some doubt on the Rev. Al Sharpton radio program about whether he can reform or “clean up his act.” That process, consistent with the First Amendment, is up to Imus. But perhaps Don Imus can acknowledge that Moonves did the right thing for the right reason, and that brutally offending segments of the population based upon racist and sexist attitudes for sport and humor is neither funny nor as commercially viable as it once was. If Don Imus is the talented broadcaster and entertainer that many admire, and if what he said is not what is in his heart, then he may be able to rise from the ashes and begin anew on the commercial airwaves. Unlike Icarus, he has a second chance.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
The White Man’s Burden
Question: “What does a White man call a Black man who is a millionaire, has never broken the law, has a loving and healthy family, owns a large profitable corporation and who devotes time and money to several charities, behind his back?” Answer: “A N_____!”
There is a saying that truth is often offered up masquerading as jest. That old saw has come to a serious test in recent days with the controversy over remarks by Don Imus in his nationally syndicated CBS and NBC trash talking radio show. He referred to the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, comprised primarily of talented young Black women who played Tennessee for the NCAA National Championship, a bunch of “rough” and “nappy headed Ho’s.” Imus tried to deflect criticism by saying that Black people [Imus is not Black, FYI] often use such degrading terms about Black women in their culture. He also tried to excuse his behavior as comedy that went too far. After a couple of days of protest from outside groups, the networks decided to suspend Imus for two weeks.
Pundits are leaping to the fore to characterize this as a major issue, and a Boston Globe editorial article claims that how Barack Obama responds is a “first crucial test” of how he handles race in his Presidential bid. This is, of course, utter nonsense. In their sensationalistic short attention span, they have already forgotten the Joe Biden incident. Moreover, the Imus statement is not necessarily the big deal to Black folk as it is portrayed in the media currently. His comments were deplorable, hateful, racist and irresponsible. Yet they are also sadly and simply “more of the same.” While it behooves the Rutgers team to demand an apology, and for some Black leaders to note the depravity and hurtful nature of Imus’ behavior, the task of addressing his behavior and what it represents is not on the shoulders of Black people in this country. It is the job of White America to determine whether the remarks of a powerful commercial voice in the national media is representative of the attitudes of the people who control that media and within the parameters of fair and responsible discourse on publicly owned radio airwaves.
The issue is not really whether Imus is a racist. It is fair to say, however, that what comes out of his mouth is a reflection of his character since he is not working from a script written by others. The real issue is whether the national media believe that the misogynist, racist, sexist and intolerant trash that Imus spews daily, in the guise of “comedy,” is the type of discourse that represents White America’s tastes and that complies with the network’s community responsibility that goes along with their license to broad cast. [It is a legal component of their license, though rarely if ever enforced.]
Congress weighed in on a brief display of Janet Jackson’s nipple during a Super Bowl Half-Time Show and threatened to rescind the network’s license. A hefty fine was imposed. Whether or not that was an overreaction, it does demonstrate the regulators’ ability to police and sanction behavior that they find so offensive as to be banned from public airwaves. Imus’ daily audience is not that of a Super Bowl, but his cumulative audience is probably greater. And his conduct is repetitive and far more outrageous than the brief display of a body part, accidental or not.
When Andy Rooney stated on a “60 Minutes” national broadcast show that Black people are bred or genetically predisposed to be better athletes than Whites, he was removed from the airwaves. Whether he was racist or inept at comedy was irrelevant to the network. His behavior was deemed unacceptable for their concept of responsible programming. Whether the same or similar standard should apply to Imus is not a decision that will be made by people of color. It will be made by White male executives of the media networks. The decision that they make will be driven by dollars that derive from the collective message sent by a predominantly white audience whether the kind of trash broadcast by Imus is indicative of what the American people these days want as part of the public airwaves. Black people have no comparable media outlet. This burden falls on the shoulders of White men. [Sorry ladies, even though the Imus comments were offensive to women as well, you are not represented among the heads of the networks either.] Whether the burden on Black people has changed will depend, to some extent, upon how White America addresses issues of race such as that presented by the Don Imus broadcast remarks.
There is a saying that truth is often offered up masquerading as jest. That old saw has come to a serious test in recent days with the controversy over remarks by Don Imus in his nationally syndicated CBS and NBC trash talking radio show. He referred to the Rutgers Women’s Basketball team, comprised primarily of talented young Black women who played Tennessee for the NCAA National Championship, a bunch of “rough” and “nappy headed Ho’s.” Imus tried to deflect criticism by saying that Black people [Imus is not Black, FYI] often use such degrading terms about Black women in their culture. He also tried to excuse his behavior as comedy that went too far. After a couple of days of protest from outside groups, the networks decided to suspend Imus for two weeks.
Pundits are leaping to the fore to characterize this as a major issue, and a Boston Globe editorial article claims that how Barack Obama responds is a “first crucial test” of how he handles race in his Presidential bid. This is, of course, utter nonsense. In their sensationalistic short attention span, they have already forgotten the Joe Biden incident. Moreover, the Imus statement is not necessarily the big deal to Black folk as it is portrayed in the media currently. His comments were deplorable, hateful, racist and irresponsible. Yet they are also sadly and simply “more of the same.” While it behooves the Rutgers team to demand an apology, and for some Black leaders to note the depravity and hurtful nature of Imus’ behavior, the task of addressing his behavior and what it represents is not on the shoulders of Black people in this country. It is the job of White America to determine whether the remarks of a powerful commercial voice in the national media is representative of the attitudes of the people who control that media and within the parameters of fair and responsible discourse on publicly owned radio airwaves.
The issue is not really whether Imus is a racist. It is fair to say, however, that what comes out of his mouth is a reflection of his character since he is not working from a script written by others. The real issue is whether the national media believe that the misogynist, racist, sexist and intolerant trash that Imus spews daily, in the guise of “comedy,” is the type of discourse that represents White America’s tastes and that complies with the network’s community responsibility that goes along with their license to broad cast. [It is a legal component of their license, though rarely if ever enforced.]
Congress weighed in on a brief display of Janet Jackson’s nipple during a Super Bowl Half-Time Show and threatened to rescind the network’s license. A hefty fine was imposed. Whether or not that was an overreaction, it does demonstrate the regulators’ ability to police and sanction behavior that they find so offensive as to be banned from public airwaves. Imus’ daily audience is not that of a Super Bowl, but his cumulative audience is probably greater. And his conduct is repetitive and far more outrageous than the brief display of a body part, accidental or not.
When Andy Rooney stated on a “60 Minutes” national broadcast show that Black people are bred or genetically predisposed to be better athletes than Whites, he was removed from the airwaves. Whether he was racist or inept at comedy was irrelevant to the network. His behavior was deemed unacceptable for their concept of responsible programming. Whether the same or similar standard should apply to Imus is not a decision that will be made by people of color. It will be made by White male executives of the media networks. The decision that they make will be driven by dollars that derive from the collective message sent by a predominantly white audience whether the kind of trash broadcast by Imus is indicative of what the American people these days want as part of the public airwaves. Black people have no comparable media outlet. This burden falls on the shoulders of White men. [Sorry ladies, even though the Imus comments were offensive to women as well, you are not represented among the heads of the networks either.] Whether the burden on Black people has changed will depend, to some extent, upon how White America addresses issues of race such as that presented by the Don Imus broadcast remarks.
Monday, April 09, 2007
On or Off the Table?
Leadership in the Democratic Congress is taking a seemingly interminable period of time to redefine itself. The 2006 mid-term elections ended years of Stalinesque control of Congress by an Iron-fisted and inflexible troika of GOP “leaders,” including “The Hammer,” “Doc” and the President. We now have a parade of so called Democratic leaders that seem more adept at making public announcements on what the Democrats will or won’t do, than they are competent to get the Democratic caucus to follow their outspoken positions. Many of those pronouncements have been unnecessary and premature, and because of that have weakened confidence in their leadership abilities.
Nancy Pelosi, upon taking the seat of Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared that impeachment of Bush and Cheney was “off the table.” Whether of not she personally believed that eschewing the strife of formal impeachment proceedings would be best for the country, she was imprudent to take that public position. Suppose that Patrick Fitzgerald had declared at the outset of the investigation into the Valerie Plame fiasco that indictment of White House officials was “off the table?” He would have been deemed derelict in his duty and properly removed from his position. To decide the outcome before examining the facts and evidence is irresponsible. The subsequent revelations and attempts to mislead Congress and obstruct investigations, as the wall of silence around White House machinations crumbles, suggest much more problematic and possibly criminal activity in the White House than Pelosi or the public knew about when she took over leadership. Impeachment is a Constitutional responsibility of the Congress when the requisite facts present themselves, not a discretionary option of the Speaker.
Now Sen. Carl Levin declares that Congress will not cut off funding for the Iraq war. As Chair of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, he has significant influence. However, it is far from evident that he has the right or ability to speak for the entire Democratic Congressional membership regarding whether funding for the war will be continued indefinitely. Of course, many of these pronouncements are simple political hyperbole. No one suggests that there would or should be a COMPLETE cessation of funding for the troops already committed to the Iraq theatre. Funds have already been appropriated that will sustain current levels of activity through the summer of 2007, at the very least, accorging to GAO official reports.
The issue is future funding, whether Congress will allow the Bush Administration to continue to play a game of “gotcha” indefinitely. Bush has sent additional troops into Iraq and Afghanistan against the will of the majority of the American people [and apparently the Iraqi people as well], and then declared that failure of Congress to back his precipitous strategy with a blank check is unpatriotic abandonment of the troops. The bipartisan opposition to his strategy struggles to avoid this mousetrap. Both Houses of Congress have passed bills that include conditions for continued funding that limit the arbitrary discretion Bush has exhibited. Bush threatens to veto any measure that infringes upon his absolute discretion in any way, claiming that Congress seeks to micromanage the war.
But the statement by Levin is both untimely and inappropriate. The current situation awaits important facts and information. The latest “Surge” initiative by Bush has shown no objecgtive evidence of better success than the past four similar attempts to quell violence. Its apparent failure is evidenced by statements of the chief US military leaders in Iraq indicating that the effort will take "years" to succeed, rather than the "months" that Bush told Congress and the American people would be required to gauge success of this Surge. The whole debate over funding rests upon questions of whether the dollars and the lives of our soldiers are being spent wisely or foolishly. To declare that future funding will not be constrained, at this point, is to suggest that Congress will continue to fund Bush's strategy no matter how unsuccessful, costly or ill advised it might be.
The current standoff between Congress and the White House will unfold as the Conference Committee works out compromise language that establishes conditions upon future funding. The President will have to decide whether to accept funding that provides a measure of compromise and cooperation that the Constitution envisions, or reject the requested funding altogether. It is fairly clear that Congress will not be able to override a veto, so Bush’s rejection of the legislation would send the measure back to the drawing board. In other words, the impending decision whether to cut off future funding will be made by President Bush, not the Congress. Levin should simply have remained quiet and patient as the drama unfolds. He should not have declared that cutting off funding for the troops is “off the table” when the decision is not his to make and the critical underlying facts have yet to be revealed.
Whatever leadership is, it is NOT premature and irresponsible grandstanding.
Nancy Pelosi, upon taking the seat of Speaker of the House of Representatives, declared that impeachment of Bush and Cheney was “off the table.” Whether of not she personally believed that eschewing the strife of formal impeachment proceedings would be best for the country, she was imprudent to take that public position. Suppose that Patrick Fitzgerald had declared at the outset of the investigation into the Valerie Plame fiasco that indictment of White House officials was “off the table?” He would have been deemed derelict in his duty and properly removed from his position. To decide the outcome before examining the facts and evidence is irresponsible. The subsequent revelations and attempts to mislead Congress and obstruct investigations, as the wall of silence around White House machinations crumbles, suggest much more problematic and possibly criminal activity in the White House than Pelosi or the public knew about when she took over leadership. Impeachment is a Constitutional responsibility of the Congress when the requisite facts present themselves, not a discretionary option of the Speaker.
Now Sen. Carl Levin declares that Congress will not cut off funding for the Iraq war. As Chair of the Armed Services Committee of the Senate, he has significant influence. However, it is far from evident that he has the right or ability to speak for the entire Democratic Congressional membership regarding whether funding for the war will be continued indefinitely. Of course, many of these pronouncements are simple political hyperbole. No one suggests that there would or should be a COMPLETE cessation of funding for the troops already committed to the Iraq theatre. Funds have already been appropriated that will sustain current levels of activity through the summer of 2007, at the very least, accorging to GAO official reports.
The issue is future funding, whether Congress will allow the Bush Administration to continue to play a game of “gotcha” indefinitely. Bush has sent additional troops into Iraq and Afghanistan against the will of the majority of the American people [and apparently the Iraqi people as well], and then declared that failure of Congress to back his precipitous strategy with a blank check is unpatriotic abandonment of the troops. The bipartisan opposition to his strategy struggles to avoid this mousetrap. Both Houses of Congress have passed bills that include conditions for continued funding that limit the arbitrary discretion Bush has exhibited. Bush threatens to veto any measure that infringes upon his absolute discretion in any way, claiming that Congress seeks to micromanage the war.
But the statement by Levin is both untimely and inappropriate. The current situation awaits important facts and information. The latest “Surge” initiative by Bush has shown no objecgtive evidence of better success than the past four similar attempts to quell violence. Its apparent failure is evidenced by statements of the chief US military leaders in Iraq indicating that the effort will take "years" to succeed, rather than the "months" that Bush told Congress and the American people would be required to gauge success of this Surge. The whole debate over funding rests upon questions of whether the dollars and the lives of our soldiers are being spent wisely or foolishly. To declare that future funding will not be constrained, at this point, is to suggest that Congress will continue to fund Bush's strategy no matter how unsuccessful, costly or ill advised it might be.
The current standoff between Congress and the White House will unfold as the Conference Committee works out compromise language that establishes conditions upon future funding. The President will have to decide whether to accept funding that provides a measure of compromise and cooperation that the Constitution envisions, or reject the requested funding altogether. It is fairly clear that Congress will not be able to override a veto, so Bush’s rejection of the legislation would send the measure back to the drawing board. In other words, the impending decision whether to cut off future funding will be made by President Bush, not the Congress. Levin should simply have remained quiet and patient as the drama unfolds. He should not have declared that cutting off funding for the troops is “off the table” when the decision is not his to make and the critical underlying facts have yet to be revealed.
Whatever leadership is, it is NOT premature and irresponsible grandstanding.
Friday, April 06, 2007
Why Do Roaches Scatter When The Light Comes On?
Much of the mischief and malfeasance that we experience comes during periods of obscurity. Sometimes that darkness is a physical lack of illumination. At other times, the darkness is a product of lack of reliable and objective information that has been concealed or that no one has made the effort to uncover. During the GOP control of the Congress in the first six years of the G. W. Bush Administration, there were many examples of both types of darkness. Likewise, the Democrats in Congress failed to make a sincere effort to uncover the facts. The media also failed to uphold its traditional responsibility as watchdog and investigator of underlying facts. The result of this concealment and negligence has been devastating to the country. Whether the damage is measured in loss of lives, waste of money, loss of stature and prestige around the world or loss of domestic faith in the Government’s respect for the rule of law, the toll has been monumental.
With the change of control in Congress, mandated by the American people more than by inspired leadership from Democratic politicians, the obstacles to inquiry and disclosure of the factual evidence were reduced and the potential to shed light on the Administration activities increased. Whether driven by a sincere desire to uncover the truth or because of a sense of embarrassment and feeling compelled fulfill their Constitutional duties, Democratic leaders of Congressional Committees have pressured the release of numerous official reports that illuminate the activities and the machinations of the Administration that have taken the country so far off course.
The contrast could perhaps not be more stark than the events of the past couple of days. Vice President Cheney reasserted in an interview on the Rush Limbaugh Show that a strong relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda existed prior to the US invasion in 2003. Since he appears not to have been listening to the many reports by various independent sources thoroughly debunking that “myth,” Cheney may be relying upon a Memorandum provided by former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, that opines that such a relationship existed prior to the US invasion of Iraq. The only other reasons for Cheney making such a statement would be unbridled arrogance or delusional senility.
At the same time that the Vice President was making his appearance on the Darling of the Right Wing’s radio show, the Pentagon was releasing a declassified official report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense demonstrating and documenting how the Feith report was contrived and how Feith “cooked” the intelligence by claiming a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Inspector General's report that Armed Services Committee Chair Sen. Carl Levin requested be released confirms the overwhelming consensus of the Intelligence Community, including that CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that there was no conclusive evidence of any substantive relationship between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime and there was no evidence of any active support. The report is based in part upon a July 25, 2002 memorandum exposing the lack of foundation in the Feith memorandum that the Administration used to support its case for invasion of Iraq. Had this information come to light sooner, the debacle in Iraq might have been avoided. Instead it was concealed for years.
The intrigue in the Justice Department over the firing of US Attorneys is another example. Now that light is being shed upon the machinations of that political blunder, evidence seems to spread like the proverbial stain in the rug that gets worse with each attempt to clean it up. The inquiry started as an examination of possible improper political motivation for replacing the US Attorneys, and possible obstruction of important prosecutions. As a result of information uncovered, the investigation has now spread into evidence that high level White House aides have been illegally using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to avoid the mandatory archiving of documents created in the performance of White House business. This deliberate concealment raises additional questions [or provides plausible explanation] for the sudden late “discovery” of a large set of documents that were delivered to the Special Prosecutor almost two years after they were requested in the Scooter Libby case.
Congress is now concerned about what other transactions have been concealed through use of this underground communication network. And now the chief aide to Attorney general Gonzalez, who was primary liaison between the White House and the Justice Department in connection with the US Attorney firings has resigned her position. She has declared that she will plead the 5th Amendment right against criminal self-incrimination in response to any attempt by Congress to question her about Justice Department connections with the White House relating to the firings.
The lights are being turned on all over Washington and the mischief makers are scattering. It will take a while, perhaps even a thorough housecleaning to rectify the mess that has been made during the six years of darkness.
With the change of control in Congress, mandated by the American people more than by inspired leadership from Democratic politicians, the obstacles to inquiry and disclosure of the factual evidence were reduced and the potential to shed light on the Administration activities increased. Whether driven by a sincere desire to uncover the truth or because of a sense of embarrassment and feeling compelled fulfill their Constitutional duties, Democratic leaders of Congressional Committees have pressured the release of numerous official reports that illuminate the activities and the machinations of the Administration that have taken the country so far off course.
The contrast could perhaps not be more stark than the events of the past couple of days. Vice President Cheney reasserted in an interview on the Rush Limbaugh Show that a strong relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda existed prior to the US invasion in 2003. Since he appears not to have been listening to the many reports by various independent sources thoroughly debunking that “myth,” Cheney may be relying upon a Memorandum provided by former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Douglas Feith, that opines that such a relationship existed prior to the US invasion of Iraq. The only other reasons for Cheney making such a statement would be unbridled arrogance or delusional senility.
At the same time that the Vice President was making his appearance on the Darling of the Right Wing’s radio show, the Pentagon was releasing a declassified official report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense demonstrating and documenting how the Feith report was contrived and how Feith “cooked” the intelligence by claiming a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The Inspector General's report that Armed Services Committee Chair Sen. Carl Levin requested be released confirms the overwhelming consensus of the Intelligence Community, including that CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency, that there was no conclusive evidence of any substantive relationship between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime and there was no evidence of any active support. The report is based in part upon a July 25, 2002 memorandum exposing the lack of foundation in the Feith memorandum that the Administration used to support its case for invasion of Iraq. Had this information come to light sooner, the debacle in Iraq might have been avoided. Instead it was concealed for years.
The intrigue in the Justice Department over the firing of US Attorneys is another example. Now that light is being shed upon the machinations of that political blunder, evidence seems to spread like the proverbial stain in the rug that gets worse with each attempt to clean it up. The inquiry started as an examination of possible improper political motivation for replacing the US Attorneys, and possible obstruction of important prosecutions. As a result of information uncovered, the investigation has now spread into evidence that high level White House aides have been illegally using Republican National Committee e-mail accounts to avoid the mandatory archiving of documents created in the performance of White House business. This deliberate concealment raises additional questions [or provides plausible explanation] for the sudden late “discovery” of a large set of documents that were delivered to the Special Prosecutor almost two years after they were requested in the Scooter Libby case.
Congress is now concerned about what other transactions have been concealed through use of this underground communication network. And now the chief aide to Attorney general Gonzalez, who was primary liaison between the White House and the Justice Department in connection with the US Attorney firings has resigned her position. She has declared that she will plead the 5th Amendment right against criminal self-incrimination in response to any attempt by Congress to question her about Justice Department connections with the White House relating to the firings.
The lights are being turned on all over Washington and the mischief makers are scattering. It will take a while, perhaps even a thorough housecleaning to rectify the mess that has been made during the six years of darkness.
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
What a Gas! - or - Stupid is as Stupid Does!
Every time there is an urge to give President Bush the benefit of some doubt as to whether there is any intelligent life in the White House, he takes the stage in the Oval Office or the Rose Garden and swiftly demolishes any such doubt.
Donning the vestment of the High Chieftain of the Cult of Incompetence, George W. Bush publicly pronounced his position respecting the recent United States Supreme Court decision that the EPA has failed to present a reasonable justification for its failure to regulate carbon emissions that increase greenhouse gases leading to global warming. The Administration had tried to argue that carbon emissions were not "pollutants" and not something that the EPA had authority to regulate. That position was so weak that even the Supreme Court that Bush has stacked in his favor could not find a way to uphold. Bush reluctantly acknowledged what 99+ percent of all reputable scientists have confirmed, that human generated carbon emissions are a significant contribution to global warming. He ceded that such emissions should be regulated BUT only if the regulations do not impact economic growth AND only if the reductions from the regulation are not offset by emissions from India and China.
Bush joins ranks with other stalwart advocates of obliviousness and incompetence, such as “Dr. Z” who heads Daimler-Chrysler. Dr. Z recently announced that the most significant factor in the automaker’s loss of well over $1 Billion in the last quarter was the “unforeseeable” shift of consumers toward smaller and more fuel efficient cars, while Chrysler continues to churn out minivans and SUV’s that guzzle gas. Is it any wonder that his company is tanking [excuse the pun] while Toyota and Honda continue to eat up market share with a sustained business campaign to build and sell quality fuel efficient cars for more than a decade? Whatever Business school issued Dr. Z his certificate ought to revoke it out of sheer embarrassment.
But more importantly, President Bush deserves the Knucklehead Award for suggesting that a federal standard regulating carbon emissions would harm the economy. Most experts in the auto industry believe that enacting a federal standard, rather than the eminent patchwork of state standards that will arise if the federal government fails to act, will give the industry a useful tool for fighting back toward profitability against Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers. A coalition of power companies joined environmental groups to push for standardized regulation of power plants. Not only would EPA regulation of carbon emissions be good for the environment, it would be good for business as well.
Finally, the attempt to excuse failure of the EPA to enact greenhouse gas regulations based upon the lack of progress in China and India in obtaining such emission regulations is both juvenile and short sighted. First, US carbon emissions exceed all the CO2 emissions of China and India [and throw in the entire Far East] combined. Such thinking is not leadership, it is abdication. The USA has long been the global leader in environmental progress, at least until the Bush Administration took office. To abandon leadership because one of the other players is reluctant to go along is just silly. Since our contributions to the problem are far greater than those of India or China, delayed participation by the US seriously aggravates the deterioration caused by global warming. In addition, China and India will receive pressure from trading partners that will impose tariffs and other sanctions against them to reduce competitive advantages that may derive from failure to regulate pollution. Such pressures are likely to bring them into the fold.
After applying the simplest logic and common sense, therefore, we are forced back to square one in an effort to build a case that there is any sensible and intelligent leadership emanating from the White House. Stupid is as stupid does!
Donning the vestment of the High Chieftain of the Cult of Incompetence, George W. Bush publicly pronounced his position respecting the recent United States Supreme Court decision that the EPA has failed to present a reasonable justification for its failure to regulate carbon emissions that increase greenhouse gases leading to global warming. The Administration had tried to argue that carbon emissions were not "pollutants" and not something that the EPA had authority to regulate. That position was so weak that even the Supreme Court that Bush has stacked in his favor could not find a way to uphold. Bush reluctantly acknowledged what 99+ percent of all reputable scientists have confirmed, that human generated carbon emissions are a significant contribution to global warming. He ceded that such emissions should be regulated BUT only if the regulations do not impact economic growth AND only if the reductions from the regulation are not offset by emissions from India and China.
Bush joins ranks with other stalwart advocates of obliviousness and incompetence, such as “Dr. Z” who heads Daimler-Chrysler. Dr. Z recently announced that the most significant factor in the automaker’s loss of well over $1 Billion in the last quarter was the “unforeseeable” shift of consumers toward smaller and more fuel efficient cars, while Chrysler continues to churn out minivans and SUV’s that guzzle gas. Is it any wonder that his company is tanking [excuse the pun] while Toyota and Honda continue to eat up market share with a sustained business campaign to build and sell quality fuel efficient cars for more than a decade? Whatever Business school issued Dr. Z his certificate ought to revoke it out of sheer embarrassment.
But more importantly, President Bush deserves the Knucklehead Award for suggesting that a federal standard regulating carbon emissions would harm the economy. Most experts in the auto industry believe that enacting a federal standard, rather than the eminent patchwork of state standards that will arise if the federal government fails to act, will give the industry a useful tool for fighting back toward profitability against Toyota, Honda and other foreign manufacturers. A coalition of power companies joined environmental groups to push for standardized regulation of power plants. Not only would EPA regulation of carbon emissions be good for the environment, it would be good for business as well.
Finally, the attempt to excuse failure of the EPA to enact greenhouse gas regulations based upon the lack of progress in China and India in obtaining such emission regulations is both juvenile and short sighted. First, US carbon emissions exceed all the CO2 emissions of China and India [and throw in the entire Far East] combined. Such thinking is not leadership, it is abdication. The USA has long been the global leader in environmental progress, at least until the Bush Administration took office. To abandon leadership because one of the other players is reluctant to go along is just silly. Since our contributions to the problem are far greater than those of India or China, delayed participation by the US seriously aggravates the deterioration caused by global warming. In addition, China and India will receive pressure from trading partners that will impose tariffs and other sanctions against them to reduce competitive advantages that may derive from failure to regulate pollution. Such pressures are likely to bring them into the fold.
After applying the simplest logic and common sense, therefore, we are forced back to square one in an effort to build a case that there is any sensible and intelligent leadership emanating from the White House. Stupid is as stupid does!
ALERT: Sanity Outbreak Threatens to Disrupt Washington Politics
The Bush thrashing that goes on in this Blog and which is becoming a worldwide universal chorus has reached new levels of harmony. Voices are continually being added to the chorus that emanate not just from the “Liberal” fringe, but also from key “Conservative” groups as well. Consider the recent interview with Bruce Fein, former Associates Deputy Attorney General of the US under Ronald Reagan. Fein is also Founder of the Conservative “Liberty Coalition.” This right wing group has taken the public position that the degree of abuse and disregard of the Constitution and international Law by George W. Bush and his Administration threatens the fabric of our society and our government. They decry the failure of Congress to provide the necessary checks and balances to the power grabs by Bush.
The Liberty Coalition has launched a new initiative, known as the American Freedom Agenda. The AFA's ten-point action program calls on Congress to:
· End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.
· Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.
· Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.
· Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.
· End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.
· Challenge presidential signing statements.
· Bar executive use of the state-secret privilege to deny justice.
· Prohibit the President from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain or torture persons abroad [extraordinary renditions].
· Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.
· Prohibit labeling of groups or individuals in the US as global terrorists based on secret evidence.
The AFA plans to draft legislation to achieve these goals and to lobby Congress to put the proposed measures on the House and Senate calendars.
Is it indeed possible that this subversive group from the Right has actually taken the time to read the US Constitution and examine the transgressions of the GOP monarchy resident in the White House? If so, then the very fabric of politics in Washington, DC may be at risk. Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle will be bombarded with pressure from constituents that urge them to behave in a sane manner and actually perform the fundamental functions of governance for which they were elected to office.
This is no small matter, for if one compares agenda items on the lists of sane advocates from the Left and the Right, the common items point toward the almost inevitable conclusion that the Bush Administration officials at the highest level have violated the law and undermined the Constitution and our democratic form of government. Imagine the terror and panic in the halls of Congress if these elected representatives of the “American people” are actually compelled to do their job in a responsible and sane manner, instead of posturing for the media and fundraising groups? Can the Republic survive an outbreak of sanity?
The Liberty Coalition has launched a new initiative, known as the American Freedom Agenda. The AFA's ten-point action program calls on Congress to:
· End the use of military commissions to prosecute crimes.
· Prohibit the use of secret evidence or evidence obtained by torture.
· Prohibit the detention of American citizens as enemy combatants without proof.
· Restore habeas corpus for alleged alien combatants.
· End National Security Agency warrantless wiretapping.
· Challenge presidential signing statements.
· Bar executive use of the state-secret privilege to deny justice.
· Prohibit the President from collaborating with foreign governments to kidnap, detain or torture persons abroad [extraordinary renditions].
· Amend the Espionage Act to permit journalists to report on classified national security matters without threat of persecution.
· Prohibit labeling of groups or individuals in the US as global terrorists based on secret evidence.
The AFA plans to draft legislation to achieve these goals and to lobby Congress to put the proposed measures on the House and Senate calendars.
Is it indeed possible that this subversive group from the Right has actually taken the time to read the US Constitution and examine the transgressions of the GOP monarchy resident in the White House? If so, then the very fabric of politics in Washington, DC may be at risk. Congressmen and Senators from both sides of the aisle will be bombarded with pressure from constituents that urge them to behave in a sane manner and actually perform the fundamental functions of governance for which they were elected to office.
This is no small matter, for if one compares agenda items on the lists of sane advocates from the Left and the Right, the common items point toward the almost inevitable conclusion that the Bush Administration officials at the highest level have violated the law and undermined the Constitution and our democratic form of government. Imagine the terror and panic in the halls of Congress if these elected representatives of the “American people” are actually compelled to do their job in a responsible and sane manner, instead of posturing for the media and fundraising groups? Can the Republic survive an outbreak of sanity?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)