How many more stones must be thrown onto the pile before the mountain of evidence appears so inescapably obvious that our Congressional representatives will muster the courage to act? There are now volumes of testimony on the record about how the White House manipulated the intelligence, set up its own separate back channel to manufacture self-serving “assessments” and intimidated anyone who sought to blow the whistle on the White House plan to invade Iraq on false pretenses. The Downing Street Memos provide international corroboration that the Bush Administration gave assurances to Tony Blair that the “intelligence would be fixed around the policy” – i.e. the intelligence assessments would be manipulated to support the preconceived plan for invasion. THese and other pledges were made to persuade great Britain to join the “Coalition of the Willing.” Blair obviously thought that they could get away with it because he signed up despite the absence of a UN authorization.
Today, the Senate Select Committee on Foreign Intelligence issues a report confirming that the true CIA assessment of Iraq prior to the US invasion warned of the serious risks of toppling the Saddam Hussein Regime and the potential for resistance, factional infighting and chaos that could ensue after the removal of Hussein. Consider these excerpts:
In January 2003, two months before the invasion, the intelligence community's think tank — the National Intelligence Council — issued an assessment warning that after Saddam was toppled, there was “a significant chance that domestic groups would engage in violent conflict with each other and that rogue Saddam loyalists would wage guerilla warfare either by themselves or in alliance with terrorists.” It also warned that “many angry young recruits” would fuel the rank of Islamic extremists and "Iraqi political culture is so imbued with mores (opposed) to the democratic experience … that it may resist the most rigorous and prolonged democratic tutorials."
The same assessment added, “Iraqi patience with an extended U.S. presence after an overwhelming victory would be short,” and said “humanitarian conditions in many parts of Iraq would probably not understand that the Coalition wartime logistic pipeline would require time to reorient its mission to humanitarian aid.”
The professional intelligence assessment was remarkably prophetic. Yet the Administration attempted to scapegoat the CIA and blame "bad intelligence" for the debacle that followed the invasion. In contrast to this carefully researched assessment by intelligence professionals, Vice President Cheney predicted that the US forces would be "welcomed as liberators." We will probably never really know whether Cheney was cynically trying to dupe the public or that these were the ravings of a self-deluded madman. The result is the same, however. More than 3400 American families have lost loved ones and tens of thousands more are suffering from battle wounds, physical and mental, from participation in a military escapade that never should have happened. Add to that number the deaths of civilian contractors resulting from profit driven “privatization” of the war effort by the Administration. This toll does not begin to touch the suffering, deaths and displacement of Iraqis caused or facilitated by the collapse of civil authority that resulted from the botched US invasion.
It is hard to define the precise obstacle to action holding the Bush and Cheney Administration accountable for these deliberate and deadly deceptions. Clearly, if such conduct leading to the predictable death of an innocent third person had been perpetrated by the average American, an indictment for manslaughter would be the minimum action taken. Perhaps it is the sheer magnitude of the crime that holds the Congress back. For it is not just a crime against a single person sacrificed to the Presidential ego and Administration lies, but thousands of deaths. Many Americans may shrink from accepting the notion that this country is capable of the kinds of war crimes for which we have easily condemned Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein and others. At some point, however, America will have to remove the blinders and see what is obvious.
Each “stone” of evidence that has been amassed and the additional ones that continue to appear collectively represent a mountain of guilt on the part of George W. Bush and Richard Cheney.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Blank Check for a Bankrupt Policy – or – The Boneless Chicken Feast
Thinking about the Democratic “Leadership” in Congress, and their handling of the current Military Funding Bill, I am reminded of a "Far Side" cartoon of a “Boneless Chicken Ranch.” It depicted a bunch of "boneless" chickens laying and wobbling about in a barnyard. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi appear similarly spineless and absurd. They apparently have negotiated a complete abdication of their popular mandate to challenge the Bush Administration and, if possible, change the course of the Iraq Debacle. That public mandate is what brought these “Leaders” to power.
The excuse given for the “compromise” legislation is that President Bush threatens to veto any bill that included any type of accountability measure. In essence, he had declared that he would play a game of “Chicken” with Congress to see who would blink first. Were this just a game or a test of egos, it might be entertaining to some. But in this case, the Congress has caved in and effectively sentenced hundreds, if not thousands, more American troops to loss of life and limb in an aimless and incompetent fiasco. The situation in Iraq has sunk into civil war that no American intervention could prevent or stop. It is a situation for the Iraqi's to resolve for themselves, with the support of its regional neighbors. For American troops, it is a deadly proposition without any upside. Even the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister have said that they want the US troops out of Iraq.
Instead of executing the task they were sent to do, Congressional leaders have apparently agreed to give President Bush another blank check to throw billions more dollars into his deluded messianic mission to export Democracy and Freedom to the Iraqi people. How ironic that someone who has such little respect for Democracy should embark on such a Crusade. However, all fault does not lie with Bush. He has been delusional, intransigent and wrong, but he has been consistent. When his GOP colleagues met with him to tell him that the American people are insistent on a change of course in Iraq and that he has no credibility with the American people, they asked him what his “Plan B” regarding troop funding would be. He told them that he was unwilling to discuss a Plan B because it would mean a concession that Plan A had not worked. He had thus signaled that he would not change his mind or his course until forced to do so.
The Congress had a perfect chance to precipitate that change with the troop funding legislation. All they needed to do was to hold firm and pass another Bill with timetables and restrictions and send it to the Oval Office. If Bush chose to veto it, then he would have to accept the consequences for delaying funding to the military. Alternatively, he would have to discuss Plan B. The argument that failing to provide a blank check to the Administration was “not supporting the troops” is false and cynical. The Congressional attempts to provide limitations on the funding were the best hope of providing true support to the troops by mandating a rational strategy for getting them out of Iraq. Remember also that Congress previously has passed emergency stopgap legislation when government was on the verge of shutting down. If Bush vetoed a Bill with restrictions a second time, Congress could still pass a stopgap measure that assured the minimal military funding that is required until a comprehensive measure could be worked out. The currently proposed legislative cave in not only emboldens Bush to continue with his misguided “mission” in Iraq, but encourages him in his current efforts to precipitate yet another dangerous military confrontation with Iran.
This is no delicate moral dilemma; it is a case of common sense. Picture your child caught in the middle of a busy expressway with traffic speeding recklessly in both directions. Would you send the rest of your children out there to stand in the middle of the road to stop traffic? Or would you take immediate steps to get your child out of harm’s way? If the traffic is going to continue anyway and will involve collisions, removing your child from a dangerous situation at least removes the prospect that your child will be killed or injured in the collision. It is not rocket science; it is logic and common sense.
There must be some kind of force field around Washington, DC that dissolves the backbones and saps the consciousness from legislators. They start out from their home districts with a clear message that they are dispatched to deliver and job they are hired to perform. Once they reach the Capitol, however, they become mindless and spineless tools of lobbyists and political pollsters. They react out of fear, rather than act out of principle. This is a time when the need for true leadership is most evident. Someone is required who understands principle above political expediency. We need someone who is prepared to stand up and do what is right, rather than just what seems the easiest. Those candidates who aspire to occupy the White House should be measured by their response [or lack thereof] to the current funding situation. There is an old adage that is you will not stand up for something, you will fall for anything. That is not the kind of spineless individual that this country needs.
The excuse given for the “compromise” legislation is that President Bush threatens to veto any bill that included any type of accountability measure. In essence, he had declared that he would play a game of “Chicken” with Congress to see who would blink first. Were this just a game or a test of egos, it might be entertaining to some. But in this case, the Congress has caved in and effectively sentenced hundreds, if not thousands, more American troops to loss of life and limb in an aimless and incompetent fiasco. The situation in Iraq has sunk into civil war that no American intervention could prevent or stop. It is a situation for the Iraqi's to resolve for themselves, with the support of its regional neighbors. For American troops, it is a deadly proposition without any upside. Even the Iraqi Parliament and Prime Minister have said that they want the US troops out of Iraq.
Instead of executing the task they were sent to do, Congressional leaders have apparently agreed to give President Bush another blank check to throw billions more dollars into his deluded messianic mission to export Democracy and Freedom to the Iraqi people. How ironic that someone who has such little respect for Democracy should embark on such a Crusade. However, all fault does not lie with Bush. He has been delusional, intransigent and wrong, but he has been consistent. When his GOP colleagues met with him to tell him that the American people are insistent on a change of course in Iraq and that he has no credibility with the American people, they asked him what his “Plan B” regarding troop funding would be. He told them that he was unwilling to discuss a Plan B because it would mean a concession that Plan A had not worked. He had thus signaled that he would not change his mind or his course until forced to do so.
The Congress had a perfect chance to precipitate that change with the troop funding legislation. All they needed to do was to hold firm and pass another Bill with timetables and restrictions and send it to the Oval Office. If Bush chose to veto it, then he would have to accept the consequences for delaying funding to the military. Alternatively, he would have to discuss Plan B. The argument that failing to provide a blank check to the Administration was “not supporting the troops” is false and cynical. The Congressional attempts to provide limitations on the funding were the best hope of providing true support to the troops by mandating a rational strategy for getting them out of Iraq. Remember also that Congress previously has passed emergency stopgap legislation when government was on the verge of shutting down. If Bush vetoed a Bill with restrictions a second time, Congress could still pass a stopgap measure that assured the minimal military funding that is required until a comprehensive measure could be worked out. The currently proposed legislative cave in not only emboldens Bush to continue with his misguided “mission” in Iraq, but encourages him in his current efforts to precipitate yet another dangerous military confrontation with Iran.
This is no delicate moral dilemma; it is a case of common sense. Picture your child caught in the middle of a busy expressway with traffic speeding recklessly in both directions. Would you send the rest of your children out there to stand in the middle of the road to stop traffic? Or would you take immediate steps to get your child out of harm’s way? If the traffic is going to continue anyway and will involve collisions, removing your child from a dangerous situation at least removes the prospect that your child will be killed or injured in the collision. It is not rocket science; it is logic and common sense.
There must be some kind of force field around Washington, DC that dissolves the backbones and saps the consciousness from legislators. They start out from their home districts with a clear message that they are dispatched to deliver and job they are hired to perform. Once they reach the Capitol, however, they become mindless and spineless tools of lobbyists and political pollsters. They react out of fear, rather than act out of principle. This is a time when the need for true leadership is most evident. Someone is required who understands principle above political expediency. We need someone who is prepared to stand up and do what is right, rather than just what seems the easiest. Those candidates who aspire to occupy the White House should be measured by their response [or lack thereof] to the current funding situation. There is an old adage that is you will not stand up for something, you will fall for anything. That is not the kind of spineless individual that this country needs.
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
“Just Because You Are Paranoid….”
Some, including a large segment of the Iranian people, have described the Iranian President Amadinajad as bellicose and overly confrontational. They view his public profile as doing little to promote the real issues facing the Iranian government and Iranian society. Others critics view him as a paranoid and overly defensive reactionary who acts upon fears of conspiracies and plots by the US to invade Iran (as they have done in Iraq) for the purpose of regime change. While current development of nuclear capability in Iran is on a path toward atomic energy production, Amadinajad’s rhetoric keeps fanning the suspicion that there may be underlying intent to divert research and development toward nuclear weapons capability.
Those in the Persian Gulf region who criticize the Iranian President recognize that Iran has tremendous resources and potential influence in the area, if employed in a prudent and constructive manner. These assets give Iran leverage and bargaining power to broker and participate in both economic and political deals that could help stabilize the region and promote economic development. The major forces working against such progress are religious extremism, tribal feuds and external bigotry and antagonistic policies like the Bush Administration stance toward Iran and Islam generally. These critics believe that Amadinajad is squandering the potential leverage Iran holds by his public histrionics and confrontational dialogue.
The Bush Administration hostility toward Iran goes beyond diplomatic prudence to unjustifiably irrational levels. While the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability should be of some concern to the rest of the world, it is no more dangerous than Israel having such capabilities. Indeed, some Arab nations have exposed the duplicity of US policy by demanding that any non-proliferation accord should call for a nuclear free “region.” This would combine a demand for Iran and Pakistan to eschew nuclear weapons with a commitment by Israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. In addition, the neighbors of Iran have more immediate concerns regarding Iran’s path of nuclear development than does the US. The constant drumbeat of the Bush led “Crusades” against Islamic nations, which appear to attack religion and ethnicity more than political policies, obliges Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other neighbors to defend Iran rather than spend energy on a peaceful solution.
Now the daily breaking news that Bush has ordered nine additional warships into the Gulf of Oman for “training exercises,” when added to the Battle groups already stationed in the region , lends support to the fears that the US may indeed be staging military personnel and equipment for an assault. There is no evidence of any impending threat of a hostile third party attack upon any US ally in the region that would warrant such a military buildup. At the same time Bush has issued a secret directive for the CIA to commence a covert “Black Operation” to attempt to destabilize the Iranian government regime. When considering an Iranian response, this brings to mind the old maxim: “Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.” In light of the overtly hostile and unnecessary actions by the Bush Administration to provoke and intimidate the Iranian government, a defensive response by Teheran could be viewed as quite rational and prudent.
Why Bush would, at this point in time, seek to provoke or initiate warfare on a third front when he is so poorly handling the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great mystery. The philosophy of "unilateralism" as employed by Bush has failed miserably and been condemned in the international community and at home. World leaders, including Great Britain who has been his closest ally, are all maintaining a prophylactic distance from Bush. The US Congress has declared that they want Bush to end the Iraq conflict rather than continue or expand it. And his GOP colleagues have told Bush that he has absolutely no credibility. The Military leadership have acknowledged that the US military has been stretched to the breaking point by current demands and commitments. In this context, launching an offensive to embroil the US in yet another unnecessary military conflict would seem the irrational ravings of someone having taken leave of their senses. But the invasion of Iraq based upon lies in order to “get” Saddam Hussein was in many respects the same.
Just because the actions of Amadinajad may seem defensive and paranoid, the behavior of George W. Bush and his Administration tends to support the notion that Bush is “out to get” Amadinajad and that the US government is planning to invade Iran.
Those in the Persian Gulf region who criticize the Iranian President recognize that Iran has tremendous resources and potential influence in the area, if employed in a prudent and constructive manner. These assets give Iran leverage and bargaining power to broker and participate in both economic and political deals that could help stabilize the region and promote economic development. The major forces working against such progress are religious extremism, tribal feuds and external bigotry and antagonistic policies like the Bush Administration stance toward Iran and Islam generally. These critics believe that Amadinajad is squandering the potential leverage Iran holds by his public histrionics and confrontational dialogue.
The Bush Administration hostility toward Iran goes beyond diplomatic prudence to unjustifiably irrational levels. While the prospect of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons capability should be of some concern to the rest of the world, it is no more dangerous than Israel having such capabilities. Indeed, some Arab nations have exposed the duplicity of US policy by demanding that any non-proliferation accord should call for a nuclear free “region.” This would combine a demand for Iran and Pakistan to eschew nuclear weapons with a commitment by Israel to relinquish its nuclear arsenal. In addition, the neighbors of Iran have more immediate concerns regarding Iran’s path of nuclear development than does the US. The constant drumbeat of the Bush led “Crusades” against Islamic nations, which appear to attack religion and ethnicity more than political policies, obliges Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other neighbors to defend Iran rather than spend energy on a peaceful solution.
Now the daily breaking news that Bush has ordered nine additional warships into the Gulf of Oman for “training exercises,” when added to the Battle groups already stationed in the region , lends support to the fears that the US may indeed be staging military personnel and equipment for an assault. There is no evidence of any impending threat of a hostile third party attack upon any US ally in the region that would warrant such a military buildup. At the same time Bush has issued a secret directive for the CIA to commence a covert “Black Operation” to attempt to destabilize the Iranian government regime. When considering an Iranian response, this brings to mind the old maxim: “Just because you are paranoid, doesn’t mean that they are not out to get you.” In light of the overtly hostile and unnecessary actions by the Bush Administration to provoke and intimidate the Iranian government, a defensive response by Teheran could be viewed as quite rational and prudent.
Why Bush would, at this point in time, seek to provoke or initiate warfare on a third front when he is so poorly handling the current situations in Iraq and Afghanistan is a great mystery. The philosophy of "unilateralism" as employed by Bush has failed miserably and been condemned in the international community and at home. World leaders, including Great Britain who has been his closest ally, are all maintaining a prophylactic distance from Bush. The US Congress has declared that they want Bush to end the Iraq conflict rather than continue or expand it. And his GOP colleagues have told Bush that he has absolutely no credibility. The Military leadership have acknowledged that the US military has been stretched to the breaking point by current demands and commitments. In this context, launching an offensive to embroil the US in yet another unnecessary military conflict would seem the irrational ravings of someone having taken leave of their senses. But the invasion of Iraq based upon lies in order to “get” Saddam Hussein was in many respects the same.
Just because the actions of Amadinajad may seem defensive and paranoid, the behavior of George W. Bush and his Administration tends to support the notion that Bush is “out to get” Amadinajad and that the US government is planning to invade Iran.
Monday, May 21, 2007
President Carter Remarks - Sad, But True!
Former president Jimmy Carter spoke candidly in a couple of highly publicized interviews over the past weekend. In one interview, he was quoted as characterizing the current Bush Administration as the worst in history in its adverse impact on foreign policy. He explained his criticism by noting that the United States foreign policy, under George W. Bush was a:
”radical departure from all previous administration policies” [with the Iraq war]. “We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.”
In a BBC interview, Carter also expressed strong criticism of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He noted that if Blair had not acted in such a subservient manner to Bush and followed blindly in the invasion of Iraq, the situation there would not have been as protracted or as bad as it is now.
The White House responded to the stinging rebuke by attempting to trivialize Carter and thereby reduce the force of his comments. A White House spokesperson stated that Carter’s remarks were “sad” and suggested that Carter was becoming “irrelevant.” The White House response, however, appears rather weak and ineffectual for a couple of reasons. First, Bush has shone a remarkable ability to ignore and disregard any realistic and serious criticism of his decisions or his policies. So we should not be surprised that Bush would brush off criticism from one of the few living people on the planet who have personal knowledge and experience regarding the responsibilities of the office of US President, and therefore the most expertise on the subject. Second, calling Carter “irrelevant” is both petty and ineffectual. It is the ideas and the rationale that Carter spoke that are important. Carter did not seek to aggrandize himself or to even give direction or advice to Bush. He was asked for his honest opinion based upon his experience on a subject and he did so. Regardless of any personal attack by the White House on Carter, his views and opinion are manifest for all to evaluate on their merits.
It is indeed sad that a former President could look upon the actions of his successor and find them so badly flawed. Remember that Carter had far more justification for an invasion of the Middle East than did Bush. Iran had captured the US Embassy and was holding US diplomatic personnel hostage. In many quarters, such an act would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But Carter took the heat and refused to invoke war powers. Despite all the bluster by the current Bush Administration about what it believes that Iran may be planning to do regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran is still not an immediate threat to the US. And despite Bush’s reluctance, it looks like the US will take steps to re-establish dialogue with Teheran that could be useful in defusing rather than escalating tensions. The saddest aspect of Carter’s comments about the current Administration is that they are so accurate.
Carter is not the shrinking violet when it comes to addressing major public issues. He wrote a book expressing his dismay at the way that “religious right” extremists have hijacked the political sphere and steered the American political process in directions that are decidedly “unchristian” and often self contradictory and self serving. We now see each GOP candidate for President trotting off to visit Ralph Reed, and Bob Jones University to genuflect and pray for support in their run for the prize.
Carter also spoke out against the policies of Israel that seem to be geared toward establishing and maintaining a system that is more like apartheid than democracy respecting the Palestinians. He opined that as long as Israel continued on that path, there was no real prospect for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. He faced a firestorm of complaints from highly partisan pro Israel quarters. But as a key player in the Camp David Accords, his knowledge and observations concerning that sphere should not be so easily shunted aside because expressing them was unpopular with strong lobbying groups. The label might have been harsh, but a reasoning view might search for the truth in his commentary and see whether there might be room for improvement in Israel’s foreign policy. After all, the current approach certainly is not working.
Similarly, Carter’s disapproval of Bush's departure into the sphere of "unilateral regime change" and "pre-emptive war," policies that have generally been deemed war crimes in the international community, was not an outrageous statement on its merits. That it broke the “code” of former Presidents not openly criticizing sitting Presidents may have been impolite and sad, but Carter’s comments were all too true and most certainly relevant.
”radical departure from all previous administration policies” [with the Iraq war]. “We now have endorsed the concept of pre-emptive war where we go to war with another nation militarily, even though our own security is not directly threatened, if we want to change the regime there or if we fear that some time in the future our security might be endangered.”
In a BBC interview, Carter also expressed strong criticism of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He noted that if Blair had not acted in such a subservient manner to Bush and followed blindly in the invasion of Iraq, the situation there would not have been as protracted or as bad as it is now.
The White House responded to the stinging rebuke by attempting to trivialize Carter and thereby reduce the force of his comments. A White House spokesperson stated that Carter’s remarks were “sad” and suggested that Carter was becoming “irrelevant.” The White House response, however, appears rather weak and ineffectual for a couple of reasons. First, Bush has shone a remarkable ability to ignore and disregard any realistic and serious criticism of his decisions or his policies. So we should not be surprised that Bush would brush off criticism from one of the few living people on the planet who have personal knowledge and experience regarding the responsibilities of the office of US President, and therefore the most expertise on the subject. Second, calling Carter “irrelevant” is both petty and ineffectual. It is the ideas and the rationale that Carter spoke that are important. Carter did not seek to aggrandize himself or to even give direction or advice to Bush. He was asked for his honest opinion based upon his experience on a subject and he did so. Regardless of any personal attack by the White House on Carter, his views and opinion are manifest for all to evaluate on their merits.
It is indeed sad that a former President could look upon the actions of his successor and find them so badly flawed. Remember that Carter had far more justification for an invasion of the Middle East than did Bush. Iran had captured the US Embassy and was holding US diplomatic personnel hostage. In many quarters, such an act would be tantamount to a declaration of war. But Carter took the heat and refused to invoke war powers. Despite all the bluster by the current Bush Administration about what it believes that Iran may be planning to do regarding nuclear weapons development, Iran is still not an immediate threat to the US. And despite Bush’s reluctance, it looks like the US will take steps to re-establish dialogue with Teheran that could be useful in defusing rather than escalating tensions. The saddest aspect of Carter’s comments about the current Administration is that they are so accurate.
Carter is not the shrinking violet when it comes to addressing major public issues. He wrote a book expressing his dismay at the way that “religious right” extremists have hijacked the political sphere and steered the American political process in directions that are decidedly “unchristian” and often self contradictory and self serving. We now see each GOP candidate for President trotting off to visit Ralph Reed, and Bob Jones University to genuflect and pray for support in their run for the prize.
Carter also spoke out against the policies of Israel that seem to be geared toward establishing and maintaining a system that is more like apartheid than democracy respecting the Palestinians. He opined that as long as Israel continued on that path, there was no real prospect for a lasting peace between Israel and its neighbors. He faced a firestorm of complaints from highly partisan pro Israel quarters. But as a key player in the Camp David Accords, his knowledge and observations concerning that sphere should not be so easily shunted aside because expressing them was unpopular with strong lobbying groups. The label might have been harsh, but a reasoning view might search for the truth in his commentary and see whether there might be room for improvement in Israel’s foreign policy. After all, the current approach certainly is not working.
Similarly, Carter’s disapproval of Bush's departure into the sphere of "unilateral regime change" and "pre-emptive war," policies that have generally been deemed war crimes in the international community, was not an outrageous statement on its merits. That it broke the “code” of former Presidents not openly criticizing sitting Presidents may have been impolite and sad, but Carter’s comments were all too true and most certainly relevant.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Let’s Play “Boggle” the Mind!
They say that when you cannot find the ability to laugh, the very spirit of life is lost. In these troubled times, it is indeed difficult to find humor in the machinations of the US Government halls. However, there occasionally comes a revelation that gives one no choice but to chuckle, if not break out in peals of laughter. There used to be a game in which the objective is to come up with some idea or explanation that was so far fetched or preposterous as to boggle the mind. The story or explanation would be so outlandish as to almost be believable. That game comes to mind when reading about a recent interview with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez. During that interview reported by the Associated Press, Gonzalez explains that his close and very longstanding relationship with George W. Bush is a “good thing” because it makes it easier to say “no, Mr. President, we cannot do this.” To start, the idea that Gonzalez has ever told the President that he could not do something that the White House had set out to do is, well, mind boggling.
From the early days when Gonzalez lied for the President regarding a court conference in order to shield the then Texas Governor Bush from having to testify under oath about his drug use and alcoholism in college, Gonzalez has been the consummate “Yes Man.” As White house Counsel, he accosted an invalid Attorney General John Ashcroft recuperating from surgery in his hospital bed to try to get Ashcroft to approve the President’s illegal domestic wiretapping program. Gonzalez co-wrote the astonishing legal memo that advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and that torture was an appropriate tactic to use against detainees in the President's “war on terror.” In the role of Attorney General, Gonzalez was willing to do White House bidding in the firing of US Attorneys and replacing them with candidates chosen based upon partisan loyalty and willingness to pursue voter fraud lawsuits against Democrats that could help sway elections in favor of the GOP in key states.
When asked by a reporter during the recent interview whether he could actually recall an instance in which he had, in fact, told the President that something was prohibited, Gonzalez replied, yes. He would not, of course identify or elaborate on what that might have been, attorney-client privilege, national security, classified information, etc. But here is the mind boggling question. If Gonzalez has told the president that torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, kidnapping and “extraordinary rendition,” denial of habeas corpus and access to counsel to detainees and other practices are legally permissible, can we imagine what the president must have asked about in order for Gonzalez to tell him that it was NOT allowable? It is difficult to imagine what type of cruel and inhuman or corrupt practice would spark some semblance of conscience or moral threshold in Gonzalez to force him this Yes Man to tell President Bush “No,” Think about it.
From the early days when Gonzalez lied for the President regarding a court conference in order to shield the then Texas Governor Bush from having to testify under oath about his drug use and alcoholism in college, Gonzalez has been the consummate “Yes Man.” As White house Counsel, he accosted an invalid Attorney General John Ashcroft recuperating from surgery in his hospital bed to try to get Ashcroft to approve the President’s illegal domestic wiretapping program. Gonzalez co-wrote the astonishing legal memo that advised the White House that the Geneva Conventions were "obsolete" and that torture was an appropriate tactic to use against detainees in the President's “war on terror.” In the role of Attorney General, Gonzalez was willing to do White House bidding in the firing of US Attorneys and replacing them with candidates chosen based upon partisan loyalty and willingness to pursue voter fraud lawsuits against Democrats that could help sway elections in favor of the GOP in key states.
When asked by a reporter during the recent interview whether he could actually recall an instance in which he had, in fact, told the President that something was prohibited, Gonzalez replied, yes. He would not, of course identify or elaborate on what that might have been, attorney-client privilege, national security, classified information, etc. But here is the mind boggling question. If Gonzalez has told the president that torture, illegal domestic wiretapping, kidnapping and “extraordinary rendition,” denial of habeas corpus and access to counsel to detainees and other practices are legally permissible, can we imagine what the president must have asked about in order for Gonzalez to tell him that it was NOT allowable? It is difficult to imagine what type of cruel and inhuman or corrupt practice would spark some semblance of conscience or moral threshold in Gonzalez to force him this Yes Man to tell President Bush “No,” Think about it.
Search For "Honest Man" Continues - Hope Fades
Like Demosthenes in ancient Greece, we search among the top officials of the US government for an “honest man.” As we search among the list of federal agencies and top appointees, we are hard put to find an agency, organization or commission that has not yielded corruption on the part of top political appointees. Almost every day produces another example of the broad and pervasive reach of venality and self serving abuse of authority among these officials serving at the behest and at the pleasure of President Bush. Scooter Libby has shone us a glimpse of the level of pettiness and corruption in the halls of the White House. From that center, the malaise seems to have spread across the entire federal bureaucracy.
The malfeasance in the context of foreign affairs has been widely exposed, ranging from those involved in arranging lucrative no bid contracts in return for bribes and special favors to those approving the use of torture against prisoners and chemical weapons against civilians in violation of international law and treaties. On the domestic front, we have been shone the incompetence of FEMA and the corruption within the Corps of Engineers who are entrusted with the mission of helping prevent disasters and supporting civilian aid and recovery in the event of natural disasters. The Department of the Interior has been headed by appointed officials intent upon selling off protected natural wilderness and wildlife habitats and who has been seeking to facilitate oil exploration in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Reserve. The Environmental Protection Agency had to be forced by the courts to undertake rulemaking on carbon emissions because its leaders were so deep in the pocket of oil and energy producer industries that they refused to accept that global warming exists as a real problem.
Even the Justice Department, the executive agency most heavily relied upon for adherence to and enforcement of the “rule of law” in this country, is under intense scrutiny by Congress because of potentially illegal conduct involving its top officials. US Attorneys were fired and replaced by officials at the top of the DOJ because they were not aggressive in filing indictments and lawsuits designed to influence election outcomes in favor of GOP candidates, something the US Attorneys viewed as unprofessional and unethical. The President of the World Bank resigned over direct conflict of interest violations in awarding a huge pay increase to his girlfriend and then lying about it. Now the Chief Inspector at the Department of Commerce is under fire for retaliation against his subordinates who blew the whistle on his improper use of agency funds for personal trips and entertainment. Keep in mind that his primary job is to protect whistleblowers and to investigate claims of improper conduct by employees of the Commerce Department.
Throughout the entire cauldron of alphabet soup we find example after example of illegal actions, politically motivated misconduct and avaricious self dealing. The FDA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, DOI, CPSC, NOAA, OSC and on and on. It has been said that the true power of a President and the character of an Administration lies not in any one particular milieu he may govern, but in the moral tone that he sets for those to whom he delegates responsibility. Whether a leader exhibits a character of holding himself accountable for his decisions and actions, or instead seeks to deflect blame and responsibility until he gets caught red handed is a message that gets transmitted to those appointees chosen to carry out the directives of that leader.
As we go down the list of agencies and organizations, crossing off one after another, the hope of finding leadership that can pass the simple test of honesty and integrity grows dimmer and dimmer. To be sure, each corrupt official, like Wolfowitz, protests that he acted in good faith. Actions, however, speak louder than words. We continue to hope that there is some public agency led by an honest public servant, and so we continue to search as did Demosthenes. The philosophy of Demosthenes can be applied by a very simple litmus. “You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man's actions are, such must be his spirit.”
The malfeasance in the context of foreign affairs has been widely exposed, ranging from those involved in arranging lucrative no bid contracts in return for bribes and special favors to those approving the use of torture against prisoners and chemical weapons against civilians in violation of international law and treaties. On the domestic front, we have been shone the incompetence of FEMA and the corruption within the Corps of Engineers who are entrusted with the mission of helping prevent disasters and supporting civilian aid and recovery in the event of natural disasters. The Department of the Interior has been headed by appointed officials intent upon selling off protected natural wilderness and wildlife habitats and who has been seeking to facilitate oil exploration in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Reserve. The Environmental Protection Agency had to be forced by the courts to undertake rulemaking on carbon emissions because its leaders were so deep in the pocket of oil and energy producer industries that they refused to accept that global warming exists as a real problem.
Even the Justice Department, the executive agency most heavily relied upon for adherence to and enforcement of the “rule of law” in this country, is under intense scrutiny by Congress because of potentially illegal conduct involving its top officials. US Attorneys were fired and replaced by officials at the top of the DOJ because they were not aggressive in filing indictments and lawsuits designed to influence election outcomes in favor of GOP candidates, something the US Attorneys viewed as unprofessional and unethical. The President of the World Bank resigned over direct conflict of interest violations in awarding a huge pay increase to his girlfriend and then lying about it. Now the Chief Inspector at the Department of Commerce is under fire for retaliation against his subordinates who blew the whistle on his improper use of agency funds for personal trips and entertainment. Keep in mind that his primary job is to protect whistleblowers and to investigate claims of improper conduct by employees of the Commerce Department.
Throughout the entire cauldron of alphabet soup we find example after example of illegal actions, politically motivated misconduct and avaricious self dealing. The FDA, CIA, FBI, DOJ, EPA, DOI, CPSC, NOAA, OSC and on and on. It has been said that the true power of a President and the character of an Administration lies not in any one particular milieu he may govern, but in the moral tone that he sets for those to whom he delegates responsibility. Whether a leader exhibits a character of holding himself accountable for his decisions and actions, or instead seeks to deflect blame and responsibility until he gets caught red handed is a message that gets transmitted to those appointees chosen to carry out the directives of that leader.
As we go down the list of agencies and organizations, crossing off one after another, the hope of finding leadership that can pass the simple test of honesty and integrity grows dimmer and dimmer. To be sure, each corrupt official, like Wolfowitz, protests that he acted in good faith. Actions, however, speak louder than words. We continue to hope that there is some public agency led by an honest public servant, and so we continue to search as did Demosthenes. The philosophy of Demosthenes can be applied by a very simple litmus. “You cannot have a proud and chivalrous spirit if your conduct is mean and paltry; for whatever a man's actions are, such must be his spirit.”
Friday, May 18, 2007
We Gotta Get A New Job Recruiter!
In searching for high level career placement, professional ladder climbing and personal wealth, one could hardly do better than the recruiter that resigning World Bank President Wolfowitz must be using. First of all, this recruiter got Wolfowitz a very high profile and high paying position as head of the premier poverty fighting organization on the globe without any special expertise other than a disdain for the poor and non-white people. The placement package was so solid that Wolfowitz could hold down the job amidst continuing turmoil over his lack of effective leadership and poor management skills in running the World Bank. He could contrive with impunity to provide a 40% salary raise to his girlfriend [from $133k to over $190k] in violation of World Bank policies. (Perhaps Wolfowitz believes that at $133K per year, his girlfriend was impoverished and in need of special economic aid.) When the proverbial spam hit the public fan, he first claimed having nothing to do with the promotion, then retreated to the position that there was nothing wrong in it, and then further retreated to the position that he “acted in good faith.” Most of us would find it hard to grasp how granting a grossly obscene salary increase to ones girlfriend in a conflict of interest situation could sincerely be believed to be “in the best interests of the institution.” But the World Bank Board accepted his explanation. All the while, George W. Bush, that Master at assigning highly qualified personnel to highly sensitive official positions, expressed full confidence in Wolfowitz. A letter of recommendation from the Leader of the Free World is a handy resume enhancer. “Heck of a job Wolfie!”
As a parting expression of regard for his services, the World Bank will be giving Wolfowitz a $400k bonus on June 1 and keeping him around on a paid “consulting” basis until his successor is in place. Such legerdemain is truly remarkable on the part of that illusive recruiter orchestrating the Wolfowitz career. Most people would have no chance at all to head a major world institution having no critical skills or experience and a philosophy that directly opposes the mission of the employer. But political connections and cronyism seem to be a very useful substitute when Bush Administration HR Department screening is involved.
Consider the appointment of Bolton to the US Ambassador post and Brown to head FEMA as solid precedent. Looking at their collective attributes, being a bully, being incompetent in technical as well as diplomatic skills and being without conscience seem to rank as desirable traits. Wolfowitz earned his credentials in deliberately lying to Congress, the United Nations, the American people and the World in order to orchestrate the US invasion of Iraq. His success in that mission helped to create millions more displaced and impoverished people in Iraq and surrounding areas. So what better job for him to take than to frustrate the delivery of economic aid and reconstruction support to those people?
Most of us would be quite happy to get a somewhat less rarified job than Wolfowitz had, even the job that Wolfowitz’s girlfriend vacated in order to accept the modest $60k raise. My mission going forward in seeking a new career opportunity, therefore, has to be to identify and try to engage whoever the recruiter is that Wolfowitz is using. I realize that I may not be nearly as qualified for high positions because I cannot rid myself of a conscience and probably cannot completely disregard common sense, integrity and a belief in basic respect for other human beings, regardless of their socioeconomic status or political party affiliation. But even a lower level position for, say $250K per year salary and a $300k bonus for failure or getting caught violating employer policies, would be acceptable. When I find out who that recruiter is, I will be sure to let you know.
As a parting expression of regard for his services, the World Bank will be giving Wolfowitz a $400k bonus on June 1 and keeping him around on a paid “consulting” basis until his successor is in place. Such legerdemain is truly remarkable on the part of that illusive recruiter orchestrating the Wolfowitz career. Most people would have no chance at all to head a major world institution having no critical skills or experience and a philosophy that directly opposes the mission of the employer. But political connections and cronyism seem to be a very useful substitute when Bush Administration HR Department screening is involved.
Consider the appointment of Bolton to the US Ambassador post and Brown to head FEMA as solid precedent. Looking at their collective attributes, being a bully, being incompetent in technical as well as diplomatic skills and being without conscience seem to rank as desirable traits. Wolfowitz earned his credentials in deliberately lying to Congress, the United Nations, the American people and the World in order to orchestrate the US invasion of Iraq. His success in that mission helped to create millions more displaced and impoverished people in Iraq and surrounding areas. So what better job for him to take than to frustrate the delivery of economic aid and reconstruction support to those people?
Most of us would be quite happy to get a somewhat less rarified job than Wolfowitz had, even the job that Wolfowitz’s girlfriend vacated in order to accept the modest $60k raise. My mission going forward in seeking a new career opportunity, therefore, has to be to identify and try to engage whoever the recruiter is that Wolfowitz is using. I realize that I may not be nearly as qualified for high positions because I cannot rid myself of a conscience and probably cannot completely disregard common sense, integrity and a belief in basic respect for other human beings, regardless of their socioeconomic status or political party affiliation. But even a lower level position for, say $250K per year salary and a $300k bonus for failure or getting caught violating employer policies, would be acceptable. When I find out who that recruiter is, I will be sure to let you know.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Cleaning House – George W. Bush Style
The chorus of complaints against Karl Rove has been long and constant. The White House has dismissed the criticism as unsubstantiated political sniping, sour grapes from the losers. With each chapter and each episode of behind the scenes corruption and abuse of authority that becomes public, the White House defense grows weaker and weaker. No one can quite explain why Rove still holds a security clearance after having admitted to intentionally leaking classified information regarding Valerie Plame. Such actions, by law require removal of clearance for top level security information. And that is only one of the myriad hijinks that Rove has been involved in.
Now, however, Rove is directly implicated in a couple of scandals that involve violations of law that do not seem to sweep so easily under the Oval Office rug. There is no GOP controlled Congress to deliberately look the other way as the laws are disdainfully ignored. Evidence has come forward through insiders and former White House and Justice personnel that Rove and other White House aides have been using an "underground" e-mail system. This secret communications channel, run through the Republican National Committee offices, was set up and operated specifically to circumvent the Presidential archives law requireing that all records of communications involving the operation of the White House be archived. After the Nixon experience, the country needed to assure that there would be a mandatory paper trail. In a related scandal, Rove involvement in the Justice Department’s strategic firing and replacement of US Attorneys in order to install political loyalists has come to light after repeated denials of White House involvement. Both strands are unraveling yet intertwined because some proof of the Rove involvement in the Justice Department scandal may lie in the underground e-mails.
Bush apparently has decided to clean up the matter by assigning Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the matter. He is charged with investigating the source and content of the e-mails, whether improper political motives were behind the firing of the US Attorneys, and the extent of White House involvement of those firings. Appears to be a very logical and responsible move, doesn’t it?
Before you answer that question consider the background. Scott Bloch is currently under investigation by the Inspector General of the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) based upon whistleblower allegation that he fired subordinates in his department for purely political reasons. Staff were not hired or removed because of relative competence or actual performance, but on the basis of whether they disagreed with Bloch's heavily Right Wing GOP philosophies. Hiring or firing staff largely based upon their agreement with his own political views and beliefs would be clearly improper and probably illegal. Consider also that the OSC has no independent power to enforce subpoenas, and therefore his "investigation" would have no ability to actually compel any witness to come forward and comply with document requests or testify. The White House has already offered to allow key witnesses like Rove to testify, but only if they are not under oath and there is no transcript. This same testimony will, no doubt, be offered to the OSC in their inquiry. Is the picture coming into focus?
The White House “investigation” of the matter is hoped to provide a “report” that whitewashes the controversy to distract the public from a Congressional finding of corruption. The Congress moves more slowly than the OSC could move. And Block has a very strong incentive to find no wrongdoing, as this would not only allow Bloch to avoid the wrath of the White House, but also set an "acceptable" standard of behavior and political corruption that would help in the OPM investigation against him.
The style of house cleaning being conducted by Bush and the White House is like trying to clean the barn with a manure spreader. There will be a lot of activity and noise, and there will be a lot of dust flying. The only thing guaranteed, however, is that the end result will stink to the high heavens.
Now, however, Rove is directly implicated in a couple of scandals that involve violations of law that do not seem to sweep so easily under the Oval Office rug. There is no GOP controlled Congress to deliberately look the other way as the laws are disdainfully ignored. Evidence has come forward through insiders and former White House and Justice personnel that Rove and other White House aides have been using an "underground" e-mail system. This secret communications channel, run through the Republican National Committee offices, was set up and operated specifically to circumvent the Presidential archives law requireing that all records of communications involving the operation of the White House be archived. After the Nixon experience, the country needed to assure that there would be a mandatory paper trail. In a related scandal, Rove involvement in the Justice Department’s strategic firing and replacement of US Attorneys in order to install political loyalists has come to light after repeated denials of White House involvement. Both strands are unraveling yet intertwined because some proof of the Rove involvement in the Justice Department scandal may lie in the underground e-mails.
Bush apparently has decided to clean up the matter by assigning Scott Bloch of the Office of Special Counsel to investigate the matter. He is charged with investigating the source and content of the e-mails, whether improper political motives were behind the firing of the US Attorneys, and the extent of White House involvement of those firings. Appears to be a very logical and responsible move, doesn’t it?
Before you answer that question consider the background. Scott Bloch is currently under investigation by the Inspector General of the White House Office of Personnel Management (OPM) based upon whistleblower allegation that he fired subordinates in his department for purely political reasons. Staff were not hired or removed because of relative competence or actual performance, but on the basis of whether they disagreed with Bloch's heavily Right Wing GOP philosophies. Hiring or firing staff largely based upon their agreement with his own political views and beliefs would be clearly improper and probably illegal. Consider also that the OSC has no independent power to enforce subpoenas, and therefore his "investigation" would have no ability to actually compel any witness to come forward and comply with document requests or testify. The White House has already offered to allow key witnesses like Rove to testify, but only if they are not under oath and there is no transcript. This same testimony will, no doubt, be offered to the OSC in their inquiry. Is the picture coming into focus?
The White House “investigation” of the matter is hoped to provide a “report” that whitewashes the controversy to distract the public from a Congressional finding of corruption. The Congress moves more slowly than the OSC could move. And Block has a very strong incentive to find no wrongdoing, as this would not only allow Bloch to avoid the wrath of the White House, but also set an "acceptable" standard of behavior and political corruption that would help in the OPM investigation against him.
The style of house cleaning being conducted by Bush and the White House is like trying to clean the barn with a manure spreader. There will be a lot of activity and noise, and there will be a lot of dust flying. The only thing guaranteed, however, is that the end result will stink to the high heavens.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Middle East Menu: US Style Freedom and Democracy? No, Thanks!
A recent study based upon extensive polling of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and Lebanon was released publicly by the head of the Arab American Institute and delivered to Congressional Foreign Affairs Subcommittees. The basic findings were that many Arabs still admire the stated values of the American people, but that they dislike and distrust the current US policies that seem at odds with those values. Dr. Zogby, head of the Institute, testified that in almost every category reflecting Arab perception of America, US policies were the decisive factor driving up the negatives.
[Dr. Zogby] told the Congressional committee that the survey showed the most significant policy issues shaping negative attitudes were "our treatment of the Palestinians, our policy in Iraq, and our overall treatment of Arabs and Islam in general - sometimes citing specific practices (detention, torture, etc.) These negative behaviors combine to call into question our adherence to our stated values."
Among respondents from Arab groups most likely to look favorably upon the US, the solid majority rejected the idea of US intervention and US assistance in promoting “freedom and Democracy” within their countries. The response was favorable to traditional types of foreign aid to assist in education, health care and building capacity to improve the standard of living in Arab countries but which respected sovereignty. However, even those who value (America's) "freedom and democracy" did not want the US style of meddling in their countries internal affairs to promote those values.
Saudi Arabians, probably the closest allies to the Bush Administration, indicated by a 52% majority that they admired the values of freedom and democracy, but only 8% approved of US Arab policies. In Egypt, 60% approved of American people, but only 1% approved of US policies regarding Arabs and Palestinians. And in recent months, that favorable rating of the American people has dropped to 23%. Similar survey results were found across the Arab world.
"Make no mistake," Zogby declared. "The situation of the Palestinians, (US) actions and policies in Iraq, (America's) perceived complicity in last year's war in Lebanon, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and last year's Dubai Ports World debacle have taken and continue to take a toll on America's standing" in the Arab world.
Such results are reminiscent of the statement by Vladimir Putin to George W. Bush that the US could keep their brand of “freedom and democracy,” as represented by the current US foreign policy. The results also reflect the predicted "who will be next?" fear arising from the US invasion of Iraq. Those who detested Saddam Hussein still question what is to stop Bush from invading their country for the purpose of regime change in the guise of the so-called "war on terror."
[Dr. Zogby] told the Congressional committee that the survey showed the most significant policy issues shaping negative attitudes were "our treatment of the Palestinians, our policy in Iraq, and our overall treatment of Arabs and Islam in general - sometimes citing specific practices (detention, torture, etc.) These negative behaviors combine to call into question our adherence to our stated values."
Among respondents from Arab groups most likely to look favorably upon the US, the solid majority rejected the idea of US intervention and US assistance in promoting “freedom and Democracy” within their countries. The response was favorable to traditional types of foreign aid to assist in education, health care and building capacity to improve the standard of living in Arab countries but which respected sovereignty. However, even those who value (America's) "freedom and democracy" did not want the US style of meddling in their countries internal affairs to promote those values.
Saudi Arabians, probably the closest allies to the Bush Administration, indicated by a 52% majority that they admired the values of freedom and democracy, but only 8% approved of US Arab policies. In Egypt, 60% approved of American people, but only 1% approved of US policies regarding Arabs and Palestinians. And in recent months, that favorable rating of the American people has dropped to 23%. Similar survey results were found across the Arab world.
"Make no mistake," Zogby declared. "The situation of the Palestinians, (US) actions and policies in Iraq, (America's) perceived complicity in last year's war in Lebanon, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, secret prisons, and last year's Dubai Ports World debacle have taken and continue to take a toll on America's standing" in the Arab world.
Such results are reminiscent of the statement by Vladimir Putin to George W. Bush that the US could keep their brand of “freedom and democracy,” as represented by the current US foreign policy. The results also reflect the predicted "who will be next?" fear arising from the US invasion of Iraq. Those who detested Saddam Hussein still question what is to stop Bush from invading their country for the purpose of regime change in the guise of the so-called "war on terror."
In what some have called an egotistical and vainglorious attempt to build a personal legacy, George W. Bush has pursued a strategy of “cowboy” diplomacy and uninvited intervention into the affairs of other sovereign nations to promote what he calls “democracy.” Bush apparently assumes that the Arab world is blind or lacks intelligence. In this global information age, people all over the world are well aware of serious issues that have arisen regarding GOP tampering with US elections [and allegations of having attempted to do so in Mexico and other Latin American countries] and Bush government intrusion on domestic civil rights and liberties of American citizens. How valuable and durable is a system being promoted, they ask, when it can be so easily broken by a single administration? Add to these perceptions the evidence of how the US has behaved internationally [condoning torture - Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Secret Prisons; illegal kidnapping - Extraordinary Renditions, the Italian Incident, etc.; condoning use of chemical weapons - " willie pete" in Fallujah, Israeli attacks in Southern Lebanon; execution and rape of civilians - eg. Haditha] and it is no mystery why the stature of the US government has fallen so steeply abroad.
Shirin Abadi, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace prize succinctly described the current problem with the credibility and reputation of the US under Bush: “Democracy promotion is seen as a euphemism for regime change. You cannot deliver democracy with guns and bombs."
Dr Zogby testified to the Congressional Subcommittees that the most effective first step to resurrect the reputation of the US government in the Arab world is to listen to what the Arab people, collectively, are telling us. This resounding message is not tied to any particular conflict or political party or relationship with a specific leader. The obvious message that comes through from the voices of Arabs across the entire spectrum reflects their rejection of the Bush Administration policies toward the Arab world. But President Bush has not shown a significant capacity to listen to the views, opinions or advice of others that do not agree with him. So, as long as he continues to serve up his brand of “freedom and democracy,” the Arab world will continue to respond, NO THANK YOU!
Shirin Abadi, the first Muslim woman and first Iranian to win the Nobel Peace prize succinctly described the current problem with the credibility and reputation of the US under Bush: “Democracy promotion is seen as a euphemism for regime change. You cannot deliver democracy with guns and bombs."
Dr Zogby testified to the Congressional Subcommittees that the most effective first step to resurrect the reputation of the US government in the Arab world is to listen to what the Arab people, collectively, are telling us. This resounding message is not tied to any particular conflict or political party or relationship with a specific leader. The obvious message that comes through from the voices of Arabs across the entire spectrum reflects their rejection of the Bush Administration policies toward the Arab world. But President Bush has not shown a significant capacity to listen to the views, opinions or advice of others that do not agree with him. So, as long as he continues to serve up his brand of “freedom and democracy,” the Arab world will continue to respond, NO THANK YOU!
Monday, May 07, 2007
Sports Break: What the Hell Were They Thinking?
Picture top round draft choices who have made the roster on NFL teams and obtained contracts assuring them seven figure incomes over the next three years. These athletes have undergone years of training and hardship, often playing through pain and injury to reach their goal of an NFL contract. Now picture these same individuals tossing all that opportunity by being arrested for illegal gun possession, felony drug possession and drunken driving. What could they possibly be thinking?
Let’s just do a quick survey [by no means comprehensive] of cases reported in the media in the past six months. Pacman Jones, Ahmad Carroll, Chris Henry, Gerald Sensabaugh and Charles Sharon were all arrested on multiple charges including gun possession. Add to them Kalif Barnes and Brian Williams arrested for speeding and reckless driving while drunk. Under the NFL’s newly imposed rules, teams will be held accountable for the behavior of their players. A clause in player contracts that allowed teams to cut players and void contract payments if the player engaged in criminal activity that brought disrepute on the team has been a hotly debated issue for years. Now the NFL has stepped in and declared that whether or not the teams include such restrictions on the players directly, the team will be sanctioned for the such behavior of its players.
It is true that many of these players came from rough circumstances and that they may have "friends" who are drawn to weapons, drugs and other criminal lifestyle elements. Many of these athletes come from college backgrounds where true education and intellectual maturation was a mere afterthought. But it is long past the time for such excuses to carry any substantial weight. These athletes know what they are seeking and should know [or be advised] that there are responsibilities that go along with the prize. There are many young disciplined athletes who do have the discipline to make the necessary choices that go along with getting a contract with an NFL team. If they can discipline their bodies to perform at highest levels to compete on the field, they can also discipline their lifestyles to avoid drugs and weapons charges. Those who cannot exercise such discipline deserve to step aside and let others step forward.
We might ask why on earth a player would actually need to carry an unregistered weapon. In 99% of all instances of their daily lives, they could and should avoid any situation where a gun might even be useful or necessary for personal defense. [When would they ever need it as an offensive tool?] If there were a legitimate risk or need to have a weapon, what would prevent the player from obtaining a legal permit? More to the point, if a player felt it necessary to go into an environment where his personal safety might be at risk, he could contract with a bodyguard who is licensed and trained in the use of weapons for a mere fraction of the player’s annual income. There are responsible bodyguards who would be happy to work for a salary of $50,000 per year. And for an athlete making more than $500,000 a year plus incentive bonuses, such a precaution would seem cheap in comparison to risking your entire career. So, what the hell were they thinking?
Let’s just do a quick survey [by no means comprehensive] of cases reported in the media in the past six months. Pacman Jones, Ahmad Carroll, Chris Henry, Gerald Sensabaugh and Charles Sharon were all arrested on multiple charges including gun possession. Add to them Kalif Barnes and Brian Williams arrested for speeding and reckless driving while drunk. Under the NFL’s newly imposed rules, teams will be held accountable for the behavior of their players. A clause in player contracts that allowed teams to cut players and void contract payments if the player engaged in criminal activity that brought disrepute on the team has been a hotly debated issue for years. Now the NFL has stepped in and declared that whether or not the teams include such restrictions on the players directly, the team will be sanctioned for the such behavior of its players.
It is true that many of these players came from rough circumstances and that they may have "friends" who are drawn to weapons, drugs and other criminal lifestyle elements. Many of these athletes come from college backgrounds where true education and intellectual maturation was a mere afterthought. But it is long past the time for such excuses to carry any substantial weight. These athletes know what they are seeking and should know [or be advised] that there are responsibilities that go along with the prize. There are many young disciplined athletes who do have the discipline to make the necessary choices that go along with getting a contract with an NFL team. If they can discipline their bodies to perform at highest levels to compete on the field, they can also discipline their lifestyles to avoid drugs and weapons charges. Those who cannot exercise such discipline deserve to step aside and let others step forward.
We might ask why on earth a player would actually need to carry an unregistered weapon. In 99% of all instances of their daily lives, they could and should avoid any situation where a gun might even be useful or necessary for personal defense. [When would they ever need it as an offensive tool?] If there were a legitimate risk or need to have a weapon, what would prevent the player from obtaining a legal permit? More to the point, if a player felt it necessary to go into an environment where his personal safety might be at risk, he could contract with a bodyguard who is licensed and trained in the use of weapons for a mere fraction of the player’s annual income. There are responsible bodyguards who would be happy to work for a salary of $50,000 per year. And for an athlete making more than $500,000 a year plus incentive bonuses, such a precaution would seem cheap in comparison to risking your entire career. So, what the hell were they thinking?
Hurricane Disaster Redux?
Four of the most tragic words in the English language for one to hear would be: “I told you so.” To face a terrible disaster and know that it could clearly have been avoided if one had only chosen to listen to sound advice given beforehand would be most disheartening and shameful. One need only look to the specific and clear warnings being given about the readiness of the Gulf Area for another hurricane to wonder whether such a tragedy will befall the Bush administration.
Beyond the Katrina Hurricane disaster, we have a shameful failure on the part of the Bush Government to live up to its express promises of aid and reconstruction of the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Areas. After first ignoring the problem, Bush went personally to New orleans to promise swift and bold action to aid the reconstruction of New Orleans. Nearly two years after the natural disaster ravaged the delta areas, the populace are still struggling and staggering to regain their footing. And that is the good news.
The hurricane season of 2007 begins next month, and New Orleans is ill prepared to deal with another storm. As with celebrated reconstruction projects orchestrated by the Bush Administration in Iraq, the celebrated levee repairs and reconstruction in New Orleans are showing serious defects. A report on levee construction funded by the independent National Science Foundation found serious flaws in the Army Corp of Engineers levee repairs, including erosion that could lead to failures in the event of significant flooding pressure. Photographs of the hurricane protection levee system can be found on the National Geographic Magazine website [ngm.com/levees].
The other lynch pin of the hurricane protection system is the network of pumps intended to remove flood waters from low lying areas in New Orleans. A previous report found that millions of dollars had been paid in no bid contracts for installation and repair of these pumps to a company owned by a previous business partner of Jeb Bush. The pumps installed by that company, however, were found defective and unable to provide the required protection even for flooding less severe than the Katrina levels.
The advance warnings are clear and unmistakable. Shoddy workmanship and opportunistic cronyism and profiteering have been endemic to projects managed by the Bush Administration. Unless massive efforts are undertaken immediately to address the defective levees and pump systems, the citizens of New Orleans and the gulf areas will be left without reasonable protection as the hurricane season returns. Whether the area can withstand another natural disaster is doubtful at best. But if another major hurricane strikes and proves fatal to New Orleans, the fault will lie not solely with Mother Nature, but also with the Bush administration which has failed miserably in providing the promised relief and protections that were both promised and deserved. And the tragedy will be that no one will be able to say that the President has not been warned.
Beyond the Katrina Hurricane disaster, we have a shameful failure on the part of the Bush Government to live up to its express promises of aid and reconstruction of the devastation in New Orleans and the Gulf Areas. After first ignoring the problem, Bush went personally to New orleans to promise swift and bold action to aid the reconstruction of New Orleans. Nearly two years after the natural disaster ravaged the delta areas, the populace are still struggling and staggering to regain their footing. And that is the good news.
The hurricane season of 2007 begins next month, and New Orleans is ill prepared to deal with another storm. As with celebrated reconstruction projects orchestrated by the Bush Administration in Iraq, the celebrated levee repairs and reconstruction in New Orleans are showing serious defects. A report on levee construction funded by the independent National Science Foundation found serious flaws in the Army Corp of Engineers levee repairs, including erosion that could lead to failures in the event of significant flooding pressure. Photographs of the hurricane protection levee system can be found on the National Geographic Magazine website [ngm.com/levees].
The other lynch pin of the hurricane protection system is the network of pumps intended to remove flood waters from low lying areas in New Orleans. A previous report found that millions of dollars had been paid in no bid contracts for installation and repair of these pumps to a company owned by a previous business partner of Jeb Bush. The pumps installed by that company, however, were found defective and unable to provide the required protection even for flooding less severe than the Katrina levels.
The advance warnings are clear and unmistakable. Shoddy workmanship and opportunistic cronyism and profiteering have been endemic to projects managed by the Bush Administration. Unless massive efforts are undertaken immediately to address the defective levees and pump systems, the citizens of New Orleans and the gulf areas will be left without reasonable protection as the hurricane season returns. Whether the area can withstand another natural disaster is doubtful at best. But if another major hurricane strikes and proves fatal to New Orleans, the fault will lie not solely with Mother Nature, but also with the Bush administration which has failed miserably in providing the promised relief and protections that were both promised and deserved. And the tragedy will be that no one will be able to say that the President has not been warned.
Fear of Justice and Freedom
With each new step the Bush Administration takes, we are further removed from the fundamental principles of jurisprudence and civil rights that have defined the American system of justice. What is it that we fear so much? Certainly, the public is rapt in the thrall of a constant and pervasive drone of fear mongering. The majority of Americans surveyed now believe that “terrorism” is one of the most important issues that we face today. The facts do not support the hype, except that global terrorist attacks have risen markedly after the commencement of the disastrous invasion of Iraq by the Bush Administration. The American people are less safe from terrorist attacks after the President’s declaration of war on terrorism than they were before it was announced. However, terrorist attacks within the United States and against US citizens have not changed significantly in character over the past decade, and (with the exception of the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center) are not typically characterized by plots or actions by Arabs and Muslim extremists. However, the nature of the threat is distinct from the question of principles that define our response to the alleged perpetrators. It is said that the true test of character is not what bad things happen, but rather how one responds to and deals with such adversity.
The character of a nation is defined by its institutions and system of justice established to protect a way of life. These principles and systems represent the embodiment of the collective moral fabric of the society. Let us take an easy example. In war, there is no question that our troops will be faced with mortal danger and encounter enemy combatants. When confronted with the capture of an enemy soldier, our military personnel have choices in responding. The rules of engagement, the principles of international law and the Code of Military Justice impose moral imperatives that prohibit cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Torture is illegal, not just because of the pain it would inflict upon prisoners but also because of how it would define our military and our society. The strength of a system of justice lies not in the severity of punishments that it can impose as consequences for conduct violating accepted boundaries of social behavior. True strength lies in the collective faith by the society that the consequences will be meted out to those proven to warrant such sanctions and that the punishment will fairly fit the crime involved.
In America, we have refined and developed a set of fundamental principles designed to assure that those who are punished are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires, under our system of justice, that the accused be accorded certain basic procedural rights. These procedures are logical and not onerous for the government. Prisoners are entitled to be advised of the charges and evidence asserted against them, the right to challenge those accusations in an impartial forum and the right to counsel to assist in their defense when their liberty is threatened. Some in American society decry the fact that this system is imperfect and may on occasion allow the guilty to escape punishment. There is, indeed, no question that the implementation of the system has seen many flaws and miscarriages of justice. However, the great majority adhere to the belief that a fair and balanced system should risk the guilty going free in order to reasonably assure that the innocent are not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. That belief is embedded in our Constitution. Most of the miscarriages of justice have come from a failure to uphold the principles of justice rather than because of the principles themselves.
The Bush Administration system of justice being adopted in response to the so-called “War on Terror,” is eroding and in some instances brutal dismantling the traditional system of American Justice we have painfully and proudly developed over centuries. Worse, the citizens of this nation seem to have acquiesced in tearing down our valued principles.
The fundamental right of habeas corpus, the right to demand that officials present a reasonable justification for holding the accused captive, is rooted in the Magna Carta and was a principal motivation for rebellion against arbitrary imprisonments by King George IV of England. Yet by simply labeling a person a potential “enemy combatant,” George W. Bush has stripped these human beings of that fundamental right. So called “enemy combatants” have been held for years without even the ability to challenge whether there are any reasonable grounds for detaining them. Many are in fact known to have no association whatsoever to combat, insurgent or terrorist organizations, yet are denied the opportunity to contest the reason for their imprisonment. What is to be feared from requiring the government to establish probable cause to hold someone in jail for years at a time? Is the fact that these individuals are Arab or Muslim or that they might be “bad” people now the functional standard of American jurisprudence for imprisonment without charge or conviction?
Most recently, the Bush Administration wants to require that all communications between the detainees and their lawyers be monitored by the government officials that are holding them in prison and prosecuting the detainees. In addition, they wish to impose a limit that the attorney can visit with a detainee client only three times. The government argues that communication with attorneys is causing unrest among the inmates. They also contend that the attorneys may be passing information about terrorism events that may facilitate further acts of terror. These arguments are beyond weak. First, it is not unreasonable to expect that inmates being advised by counsel of their legal rights and the actions by the US government to restrict such rights might be upset and frustrated. Second, the attorneys are officers of the court and can be seriously disciplined if any actual evidence of complicity in terrorist activities can be shown. The arguments put forward by officials do not begin to support the gross deprivation of fundamental access to counsel that lies at the foundation of the American system of jurisprudence.
The United States has faced threats to our public welfare in the past without the need to tear down our system of justice. The so-called “war on drugs” has been waged for years, and yet those accused of drug trafficking are not stripped of their Constitutional rights when prosecuted for crimes. During the Prohibition Era, when bootlegging and gun running were common activities of organized crime, the government did not suspend the Constitution in order to combat those crime waves. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and other “Public Enemies” responsible for horrible mass murders were all dealt with in the context of our traditional justice system. Many would argue that the steadfast reliance and trust in the inherent durability and fairness of our system of justice through these trying times made our nation stronger.
Why then is it so necessary to dismantle that justice system, suspend Constitutional protections and ignore fundamental principles of fairness in order to deal with the current alleged crisis? If the Government has evidence of probable cause to show that GITMO detainees are involved in criminal activity, why are they afraid to put it forward? Few citizens would criticize the Government for detaining individuals where such proof exists. Why is the Bush Administration so averse to complying with the minimal restrictions provided by Congress before engaging in domestic spying and wiretapping of communication by US citizens? The negative implication is that the Government lacks even the minimal justification for holding certain prisoners or for conducting secret surveillance. And this reasonable suspicion is a cancer upon the American Justice System.
Without some adherence to a fundamental system of justice and moral standards, the US imprisonment of detainees in GITMO and the various “secret prisons” around the world is difficult to distinguish from Soviet Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps. The same is true of pervasive domestic spying as was done by the KGB and the Nazis. The extent to which such repulsive analogies are close to the Bush Administration practices is what the American people ought to truly fear. Is it necessary to destroy the principles upon which this country was built in order to protect it? History has proven that the true answer is NO. But President Bush was never a good student, least of all a student of History, I’m afraid.
The character of a nation is defined by its institutions and system of justice established to protect a way of life. These principles and systems represent the embodiment of the collective moral fabric of the society. Let us take an easy example. In war, there is no question that our troops will be faced with mortal danger and encounter enemy combatants. When confronted with the capture of an enemy soldier, our military personnel have choices in responding. The rules of engagement, the principles of international law and the Code of Military Justice impose moral imperatives that prohibit cruel and inhuman treatment of prisoners. Torture is illegal, not just because of the pain it would inflict upon prisoners but also because of how it would define our military and our society. The strength of a system of justice lies not in the severity of punishments that it can impose as consequences for conduct violating accepted boundaries of social behavior. True strength lies in the collective faith by the society that the consequences will be meted out to those proven to warrant such sanctions and that the punishment will fairly fit the crime involved.
In America, we have refined and developed a set of fundamental principles designed to assure that those who are punished are guilty of crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. This requires, under our system of justice, that the accused be accorded certain basic procedural rights. These procedures are logical and not onerous for the government. Prisoners are entitled to be advised of the charges and evidence asserted against them, the right to challenge those accusations in an impartial forum and the right to counsel to assist in their defense when their liberty is threatened. Some in American society decry the fact that this system is imperfect and may on occasion allow the guilty to escape punishment. There is, indeed, no question that the implementation of the system has seen many flaws and miscarriages of justice. However, the great majority adhere to the belief that a fair and balanced system should risk the guilty going free in order to reasonably assure that the innocent are not unlawfully deprived of their liberty. That belief is embedded in our Constitution. Most of the miscarriages of justice have come from a failure to uphold the principles of justice rather than because of the principles themselves.
The Bush Administration system of justice being adopted in response to the so-called “War on Terror,” is eroding and in some instances brutal dismantling the traditional system of American Justice we have painfully and proudly developed over centuries. Worse, the citizens of this nation seem to have acquiesced in tearing down our valued principles.
The fundamental right of habeas corpus, the right to demand that officials present a reasonable justification for holding the accused captive, is rooted in the Magna Carta and was a principal motivation for rebellion against arbitrary imprisonments by King George IV of England. Yet by simply labeling a person a potential “enemy combatant,” George W. Bush has stripped these human beings of that fundamental right. So called “enemy combatants” have been held for years without even the ability to challenge whether there are any reasonable grounds for detaining them. Many are in fact known to have no association whatsoever to combat, insurgent or terrorist organizations, yet are denied the opportunity to contest the reason for their imprisonment. What is to be feared from requiring the government to establish probable cause to hold someone in jail for years at a time? Is the fact that these individuals are Arab or Muslim or that they might be “bad” people now the functional standard of American jurisprudence for imprisonment without charge or conviction?
Most recently, the Bush Administration wants to require that all communications between the detainees and their lawyers be monitored by the government officials that are holding them in prison and prosecuting the detainees. In addition, they wish to impose a limit that the attorney can visit with a detainee client only three times. The government argues that communication with attorneys is causing unrest among the inmates. They also contend that the attorneys may be passing information about terrorism events that may facilitate further acts of terror. These arguments are beyond weak. First, it is not unreasonable to expect that inmates being advised by counsel of their legal rights and the actions by the US government to restrict such rights might be upset and frustrated. Second, the attorneys are officers of the court and can be seriously disciplined if any actual evidence of complicity in terrorist activities can be shown. The arguments put forward by officials do not begin to support the gross deprivation of fundamental access to counsel that lies at the foundation of the American system of jurisprudence.
The United States has faced threats to our public welfare in the past without the need to tear down our system of justice. The so-called “war on drugs” has been waged for years, and yet those accused of drug trafficking are not stripped of their Constitutional rights when prosecuted for crimes. During the Prohibition Era, when bootlegging and gun running were common activities of organized crime, the government did not suspend the Constitution in order to combat those crime waves. Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh, Ted Kaczynski and other “Public Enemies” responsible for horrible mass murders were all dealt with in the context of our traditional justice system. Many would argue that the steadfast reliance and trust in the inherent durability and fairness of our system of justice through these trying times made our nation stronger.
Why then is it so necessary to dismantle that justice system, suspend Constitutional protections and ignore fundamental principles of fairness in order to deal with the current alleged crisis? If the Government has evidence of probable cause to show that GITMO detainees are involved in criminal activity, why are they afraid to put it forward? Few citizens would criticize the Government for detaining individuals where such proof exists. Why is the Bush Administration so averse to complying with the minimal restrictions provided by Congress before engaging in domestic spying and wiretapping of communication by US citizens? The negative implication is that the Government lacks even the minimal justification for holding certain prisoners or for conducting secret surveillance. And this reasonable suspicion is a cancer upon the American Justice System.
Without some adherence to a fundamental system of justice and moral standards, the US imprisonment of detainees in GITMO and the various “secret prisons” around the world is difficult to distinguish from Soviet Gulags and the Nazi concentration camps. The same is true of pervasive domestic spying as was done by the KGB and the Nazis. The extent to which such repulsive analogies are close to the Bush Administration practices is what the American people ought to truly fear. Is it necessary to destroy the principles upon which this country was built in order to protect it? History has proven that the true answer is NO. But President Bush was never a good student, least of all a student of History, I’m afraid.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Protecting and Supporting Our Soldiers
With the sad report of another handful of US soldiers killed in Iraq, a look at what the US is actually doing there again comes to mind, causing us to ask why and how much longer this can continue. What can be said, with any integrity to the families opf the slain soldiers and the families of soldiers still deployed? The mantra of the Bush Administration, its supporters and apologists is that the current “mission” in Iraq must be continued and that totally unrestricted funds must be appropriated to “support the troops.” However, taking the time to examine the situation in any detail suggests that these arguments are little more than false and unreflective jingoism.
Let us first look at the funding issue. A rash of recent reports detail how profligate the Pentagon and the Bush Administration have been as stewards of past funding allocated to the Iraq mission. While troops were coping with and dying from lack of adequate body armor, personal protective equipment and lack of armor for their vehicles, the Pentagon was paying millions of dollars in fraudulent overcharges to Halliburton for supposed "supply services" to the troops. Seven of the eight reconstruction projects that the Bush administration has touted as “successes” that are to help build citizen support for US troop presence are in serious disrepair or totally dysfunctional.Vital equipment and machinery have no maintenance and break down for simple failure to put oil in them, and generators are sitting idle or have been stolen. Millions of dollars of money that was supposed to pay Iraqi recruits our troops are to train remain unaccounted for and unavailable to support the mission. The long list continues, but the picture clearly emerges. Let’s just stop lying and kidding ourselves that it makes any sense to grant the Bush Administration a blank check to further conduct his Iraq adventure. The request is either a blatant request to keep the trough full for his porcine cronies to slake their insatiable greed, or an open acknowledgement that the Administration needs a blank check because it is totally incompetent to properly direct and account for the funds that they are provided.
More to the point, however, is the duplicity that underlies the declaration that current efforts and policies of the bush administration are designed to support the troops themselves. Consider a very recent report that prolonged and repeated troop deployments of 6-9 months or more, without interim periods out of theater for at least a year, are causing serious mental deterioration of our military manpower and readiness. More than 30% of soldiers deployed in Iraq are returning with serious mental illness issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [“PTSD”]. Lacking the bodies to fill recruitment quotas, the military has lowered the bar and is accepting new troops by overlooking or ignoring criminal records, mental illness histories and inability to meet previously imposed academic standards. Officers are being appointed and promoted at unprecedented rates and without time in grade experience previously required. This advancement is necessary because of the number of experienced officers who are electing to leave military service in light of the current deployment strategies.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a train that is run excessively without rest, maintained with substandard parts and driven by inexperienced engineers will be more likely to experience a train wreck? That is the current state of the US military. This is what the experienced military brass are telling the Bush Administration and Congress.
Consider also that a recent survey by the military revealed that more than a third of soldiers believe that torture of enemy captives would be acceptable if it might save the life of a fellow soldier. At least a third of soldiers reported that they would not report abuses of captives or civilians by their peers that they witnessed, and approximately half of Marines reported the same response. Both responses are directly at odds with formal rules of engagement and international law. If we assume that the soldiers that are recruited and sent to Iraq are not deliberately chosen because of a weakness in ethical fiber, then we have to conclude that the circumstances and stress of the battle theater is taking a toll on their morale and judgment. This is the experience that was seen in Viet Nam and led to massacres like My Lai. Unfortunately, the “military way” is to punish the front line soldiers who break under such pressure rather than to hold accountable the officers and officials who placed them in those circumstances.
The message both GOP and Democratic Congressional representatives sent to President Bush with the Iraq funding bill was that Congress is willing to support the troops with funding, but that there must be accountability on the part of the administration as to how the funds are used. There must be a clear and coherent strategy to achieve predefined progress and end the occupation that is putting our troops in such terrible straits. If there is no clearly demonstrable plan that is likely to improve the situation, then the greatest support of the troops is to bring them home. The US cannot solve the internal problems of the Iraqis by itself, we can only assist them. And there is no military solution, as even top US military brass have acknowledged. If the Iraqis are not inclined to resolve their own problems and they do not want us there to assist, the only sane response is to withdraw our troops. Neanderthal chest pounding rhetoric about "win at all costs" and "never accept surrender" coming form safe offices in Washington, DC, is not only irresponsible, but also fails to acknowledge the real problems that our troops face on the ground daily.
Experts have opined that US presence in Iraq is an irritant and a catalyst for the sectarian violence. Others have opined that our military presence provides an excuse for the various competing political factions NOT to work out a compromise. Were the US to withdraw its presence, or even set a deadline for withdrawal, the politicians in the Green Zone would be forced to sit down and hammer out compromises or risk losing whatever leverage they believe they now have.
The US military is one of the best trained, disciplined and capable forces in the world when they are managed in accordance with best practices as established in military regulations and deployed on missions that have some reasonable purpose and coherent strategy. The Iraq mission meets none of those criteria and is more likely to destroy the reputation and integrity of the US military than to support the troops.
Let us first look at the funding issue. A rash of recent reports detail how profligate the Pentagon and the Bush Administration have been as stewards of past funding allocated to the Iraq mission. While troops were coping with and dying from lack of adequate body armor, personal protective equipment and lack of armor for their vehicles, the Pentagon was paying millions of dollars in fraudulent overcharges to Halliburton for supposed "supply services" to the troops. Seven of the eight reconstruction projects that the Bush administration has touted as “successes” that are to help build citizen support for US troop presence are in serious disrepair or totally dysfunctional.Vital equipment and machinery have no maintenance and break down for simple failure to put oil in them, and generators are sitting idle or have been stolen. Millions of dollars of money that was supposed to pay Iraqi recruits our troops are to train remain unaccounted for and unavailable to support the mission. The long list continues, but the picture clearly emerges. Let’s just stop lying and kidding ourselves that it makes any sense to grant the Bush Administration a blank check to further conduct his Iraq adventure. The request is either a blatant request to keep the trough full for his porcine cronies to slake their insatiable greed, or an open acknowledgement that the Administration needs a blank check because it is totally incompetent to properly direct and account for the funds that they are provided.
More to the point, however, is the duplicity that underlies the declaration that current efforts and policies of the bush administration are designed to support the troops themselves. Consider a very recent report that prolonged and repeated troop deployments of 6-9 months or more, without interim periods out of theater for at least a year, are causing serious mental deterioration of our military manpower and readiness. More than 30% of soldiers deployed in Iraq are returning with serious mental illness issues, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder [“PTSD”]. Lacking the bodies to fill recruitment quotas, the military has lowered the bar and is accepting new troops by overlooking or ignoring criminal records, mental illness histories and inability to meet previously imposed academic standards. Officers are being appointed and promoted at unprecedented rates and without time in grade experience previously required. This advancement is necessary because of the number of experienced officers who are electing to leave military service in light of the current deployment strategies.
Is it unreasonable to expect that a train that is run excessively without rest, maintained with substandard parts and driven by inexperienced engineers will be more likely to experience a train wreck? That is the current state of the US military. This is what the experienced military brass are telling the Bush Administration and Congress.
Consider also that a recent survey by the military revealed that more than a third of soldiers believe that torture of enemy captives would be acceptable if it might save the life of a fellow soldier. At least a third of soldiers reported that they would not report abuses of captives or civilians by their peers that they witnessed, and approximately half of Marines reported the same response. Both responses are directly at odds with formal rules of engagement and international law. If we assume that the soldiers that are recruited and sent to Iraq are not deliberately chosen because of a weakness in ethical fiber, then we have to conclude that the circumstances and stress of the battle theater is taking a toll on their morale and judgment. This is the experience that was seen in Viet Nam and led to massacres like My Lai. Unfortunately, the “military way” is to punish the front line soldiers who break under such pressure rather than to hold accountable the officers and officials who placed them in those circumstances.
The message both GOP and Democratic Congressional representatives sent to President Bush with the Iraq funding bill was that Congress is willing to support the troops with funding, but that there must be accountability on the part of the administration as to how the funds are used. There must be a clear and coherent strategy to achieve predefined progress and end the occupation that is putting our troops in such terrible straits. If there is no clearly demonstrable plan that is likely to improve the situation, then the greatest support of the troops is to bring them home. The US cannot solve the internal problems of the Iraqis by itself, we can only assist them. And there is no military solution, as even top US military brass have acknowledged. If the Iraqis are not inclined to resolve their own problems and they do not want us there to assist, the only sane response is to withdraw our troops. Neanderthal chest pounding rhetoric about "win at all costs" and "never accept surrender" coming form safe offices in Washington, DC, is not only irresponsible, but also fails to acknowledge the real problems that our troops face on the ground daily.
Experts have opined that US presence in Iraq is an irritant and a catalyst for the sectarian violence. Others have opined that our military presence provides an excuse for the various competing political factions NOT to work out a compromise. Were the US to withdraw its presence, or even set a deadline for withdrawal, the politicians in the Green Zone would be forced to sit down and hammer out compromises or risk losing whatever leverage they believe they now have.
The US military is one of the best trained, disciplined and capable forces in the world when they are managed in accordance with best practices as established in military regulations and deployed on missions that have some reasonable purpose and coherent strategy. The Iraq mission meets none of those criteria and is more likely to destroy the reputation and integrity of the US military than to support the troops.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Of Chips and Cars
While not professing to be any form of expert in materials science or manufacturing, there are some larger common sense observations that any average American can be draw from news about technological progress. IBM just announced that it has developed a new material created by a process using heat that enables manufacture of microchip processors in mass quantities that could yield up to 35% faster processing speed and that consume 15% less energy than chips currently employed in computers. IBM is pushing to refine the process and manufacturing capabilities as soon as possible in order to compete for market share in the highly competitive computer chip industry.
Now imagine a company that has developed and patented technology that allows for the manufacture of a durable consumer good that is lighter weight, as fast and powerful as currently used goods of the same class, but that would be 30 to 60% more efficient in terms of energy consumption. This company, unlike IBM, has chosen to sit on this new technology and use aggressive measures to prevent other companies from developing the superior technology. At the same time, the company has continuously lost market share as the consuming public steadily seeks out more efficient goods of this type.
The latter company is not hypothetical. In fact, the former “Big Three” US automakers have held patents for technology that would enable production of lighter weight and more fuel efficient cars for decades. They have fiercely defended those patents from attempts by other companies to use similar technologies to produce more lightweight and fuel efficient cars. They have grudgingly introduced minimal bits of the technology as “upgrades” in their traditional models only if actually forced to do so to meet competition. At the same time, Japanese and other foreign car manufacturers have developed alternative technologies that also achieve greater fuel efficiency, and have aggressively incorporated those technologies in their products. The consumer response is clear and convincing. This year, Toyota became the top auto manufacturing company in the world.
While some may still be scratching their heads as to the cause for decline of auto manufacturing dominance of US companies, it really does not require a "scientist" or an economist. The traditional and common sense model of commercial competition – “Build a better mousetrap and get it to market” – is what has led to huge leaps in technology, huge growth in sales volume and very significant improvements in efficiency and environmental benefit in the computer chip industry. Toyota and other foreign auto manufacturers have used the same model to grab large enough market shares from US auto manufacturers to topple the Big Three. More significantly, much of the gain they have achieved is in the United States, right in the back yard of the Big Three.
There are signs that the Big Three have finally begun to recognize the reason for their downfall. The mystery, however, is why Big Three executives have remained in some clouded obscure "other" world, unable to see what each of us average consumers has seen for decades. US automakers' negligence might be excusable if they lacked the technology and were simply losing the race to obtain and incorporate new developments. However, there is no excuse for their failures when that have had access to technology that, if employed, could have helped maintain their competitive advantage and significantly improved the environment.
Unfortunately, the "loss" from their negligence has been more serious than just company profits. Tens of thousands of workers have lost employment permanently. Jobs have been exported to other countries where cars that consumers actually want are being produced. And the Environment of this world continues to be damaged by the excessive use of hydrocarbon fuels. One expert on Global Warming suggested that the increase in Global Warming could be stopped in its tracks if the United States would simply adopt and enforce fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles that are currently imposed in Europe. Even if such substantial gains could not quite be accomplished, there is little doubt that the economy and the circumstances for the thousands of displaced autio workers would have been better had the Big Three executives not been so arrogant and misguided.
Now imagine a company that has developed and patented technology that allows for the manufacture of a durable consumer good that is lighter weight, as fast and powerful as currently used goods of the same class, but that would be 30 to 60% more efficient in terms of energy consumption. This company, unlike IBM, has chosen to sit on this new technology and use aggressive measures to prevent other companies from developing the superior technology. At the same time, the company has continuously lost market share as the consuming public steadily seeks out more efficient goods of this type.
The latter company is not hypothetical. In fact, the former “Big Three” US automakers have held patents for technology that would enable production of lighter weight and more fuel efficient cars for decades. They have fiercely defended those patents from attempts by other companies to use similar technologies to produce more lightweight and fuel efficient cars. They have grudgingly introduced minimal bits of the technology as “upgrades” in their traditional models only if actually forced to do so to meet competition. At the same time, Japanese and other foreign car manufacturers have developed alternative technologies that also achieve greater fuel efficiency, and have aggressively incorporated those technologies in their products. The consumer response is clear and convincing. This year, Toyota became the top auto manufacturing company in the world.
While some may still be scratching their heads as to the cause for decline of auto manufacturing dominance of US companies, it really does not require a "scientist" or an economist. The traditional and common sense model of commercial competition – “Build a better mousetrap and get it to market” – is what has led to huge leaps in technology, huge growth in sales volume and very significant improvements in efficiency and environmental benefit in the computer chip industry. Toyota and other foreign auto manufacturers have used the same model to grab large enough market shares from US auto manufacturers to topple the Big Three. More significantly, much of the gain they have achieved is in the United States, right in the back yard of the Big Three.
There are signs that the Big Three have finally begun to recognize the reason for their downfall. The mystery, however, is why Big Three executives have remained in some clouded obscure "other" world, unable to see what each of us average consumers has seen for decades. US automakers' negligence might be excusable if they lacked the technology and were simply losing the race to obtain and incorporate new developments. However, there is no excuse for their failures when that have had access to technology that, if employed, could have helped maintain their competitive advantage and significantly improved the environment.
Unfortunately, the "loss" from their negligence has been more serious than just company profits. Tens of thousands of workers have lost employment permanently. Jobs have been exported to other countries where cars that consumers actually want are being produced. And the Environment of this world continues to be damaged by the excessive use of hydrocarbon fuels. One expert on Global Warming suggested that the increase in Global Warming could be stopped in its tracks if the United States would simply adopt and enforce fuel efficiency standards for all vehicles that are currently imposed in Europe. Even if such substantial gains could not quite be accomplished, there is little doubt that the economy and the circumstances for the thousands of displaced autio workers would have been better had the Big Three executives not been so arrogant and misguided.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Are You Kidding Me?
There have been few professional comedians able to state the most outrageously stupid, ironic or just plain funny with a completely straight face. Jack Benny and Henny Youngman were masters; more recent masters have been Bob Newhart, and Cedric the Entertainer does pretty well. But a new challenger has emerged – George W. Bush. The President of the United States came before the cameras to veto the Iraq War Funding legislation passed by Congress and stated the following, with as much of a straight face as he can muster:
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
He was sure to have them rolling in the aisles with such buffoonery. After all, was it not the politician George W. Bush who substituted his own opinions for those of the seasoned military brass when he decided to launch the invasion of Iraq without sufficient personnel, equipment or planning? And didn't the politician Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s hand picked Secretary of Defense [actually Cheney picked him; Georgie had to go along or get a spanking] who substituted his opinion for the expertise of the entire senior military ranks by deciding to launch “Shock & Awe” without a clue as to how to manage the aftermath of the invasion?
Bush and Cheney, who collectively have “zero” military battlefield experience, stepped in like self styled movie directors with delusions of Peckinpaugh or Scorsese and launched a military adventure that has caused countless scenes of death and destruction. They dispensed with any knowledgeable General who uttered a discouraging word of expertise or common sense. The mess they created is for the “stagehands” to clean up when the two of them are through playing. They must assume, as when the two of them play video games in the White House rec room, that the destruction and devastation are not “real,” and that the blood and deaths will disappear when they hit the "restart" button for a new game.
So when the news came that Bush actually used the line about “politicians substituting their opinions” as his excuse for a veto of legislation that tried to thoughtfully require some rational restrictions and some accountability regarding the blank check Congress has previously given Bush to fund the Iraq quagmire, my first response was: “You’re putting me on. Are you kidding me?” I was waiting for the punch line or for the media in the room to burst out laughing.
Unfortunately, the “joke” is on me and the rest of the American people. Bush apparently was dead serious when he coughed up that classic tidbit of irony. The statement was not only absurd, but it was also one that George W. Bush actually believes enough to declare with a straight face. When we realize that the President of the United States is so out of touch with reality and that the lives of more than 130,000 US troops [not including the nearly 3500 already dead] and countless Iraqi civilians are in serious jeopardy because of that dislocation our laughter stops cold.
The bill is unacceptable because it “substitutes the opinions of politicians for the judgments of our military commanders,” the president said in a nationally televised address to explain why he was vetoing a bill that would also provide $100 billion in emergency spending for the war.
He was sure to have them rolling in the aisles with such buffoonery. After all, was it not the politician George W. Bush who substituted his own opinions for those of the seasoned military brass when he decided to launch the invasion of Iraq without sufficient personnel, equipment or planning? And didn't the politician Donald Rumsfeld, Bush’s hand picked Secretary of Defense [actually Cheney picked him; Georgie had to go along or get a spanking] who substituted his opinion for the expertise of the entire senior military ranks by deciding to launch “Shock & Awe” without a clue as to how to manage the aftermath of the invasion?
Bush and Cheney, who collectively have “zero” military battlefield experience, stepped in like self styled movie directors with delusions of Peckinpaugh or Scorsese and launched a military adventure that has caused countless scenes of death and destruction. They dispensed with any knowledgeable General who uttered a discouraging word of expertise or common sense. The mess they created is for the “stagehands” to clean up when the two of them are through playing. They must assume, as when the two of them play video games in the White House rec room, that the destruction and devastation are not “real,” and that the blood and deaths will disappear when they hit the "restart" button for a new game.
So when the news came that Bush actually used the line about “politicians substituting their opinions” as his excuse for a veto of legislation that tried to thoughtfully require some rational restrictions and some accountability regarding the blank check Congress has previously given Bush to fund the Iraq quagmire, my first response was: “You’re putting me on. Are you kidding me?” I was waiting for the punch line or for the media in the room to burst out laughing.
Unfortunately, the “joke” is on me and the rest of the American people. Bush apparently was dead serious when he coughed up that classic tidbit of irony. The statement was not only absurd, but it was also one that George W. Bush actually believes enough to declare with a straight face. When we realize that the President of the United States is so out of touch with reality and that the lives of more than 130,000 US troops [not including the nearly 3500 already dead] and countless Iraqi civilians are in serious jeopardy because of that dislocation our laughter stops cold.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)