Of Right and wrongs - Alberto Gonzalez & Bush

The United States is caught in a moral and ethical vacuum, a plight recognized by the rest of the world but to which too many Americans seem oblivious. Any objective observer who examines the course of events within the United States of America and elsewhere at the instigation or insistence of the US government is aware how ill conceived and simply wrong the decisions and direction of the country are. Yet with this blindingly manifest wrongdoing, the so called leadership of the US government persists with an obstinate conviction that it is acting out of righteousness. The Bush administration, having lost the confidence of a majority of the populace in the world now turns to empty sophistry and claims that "history" will judge him more kindly.

As a famous philosopher stated, however, “in the long run, we are all dead.” It is the damage that we do while alive that truly matters to the living. And therein lies the rub of the moral vacuum. To do the right thing, it is necessary or at least very helpful to know the difference between virtue and evil. The ability to distinguish between true public service and self serving venality can guide policies and actions with potentially global impact. President Bush seems to lack the capacity to distinguish, or if he has the capacity he does not care to use it.

Moreover, the current Administration has been infested with sycophants and cronies who suffer from the same debility. Without any functional moral compass to guide them, they search for or concoct the policies and plans that seem to them expedient. This flies into a conundrum because “expedience” simply connotes a faster or easier means to desired ends, regardless of the consequences befalling victims along the path. When those “ends” are morally bankrupt and fashioned by persons without knowledge, experience or wisdom, the methods used are likely to be flawed and misguided as well. Thus the methods may be "expedient" but toward no useful goal or purpose except perpetuation of misguided and dysfunctional policies.

In so many cases during the past five years we have seen example after example of misconduct that ranges from petty pride and blind arrogance to blatant and felonious behavior conducted by members of the Bush Administration. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez in many respects typifies the kind of ethical corruption and moral paucity that characterizes the Bush Administration. The man appointed to be the chief law enforcement officer and principal protector of democratic and Constitutional freedoms has repeatedly shown a disregard for that responsibility. Gonzalez helped craft a memorandum that gave support to the use of torture by US government agents, claiming that the principles of international law embodied in the Geneva Conventions were “quaint and obsolete.” He saw nothing wrong with taking such a position contrary to the highest principles of global justice. Gonzalez rushed to the sickbed of a seriously ill and heavily medicated Justice official seeking to coerce approval of an unconstitutional domestic spying program that the White House wanted, and saw nothing unethical in such conduct. Gonzalez came before Congress and perjured himself about a White House backed plan to fire US Attorneys for purely political reasons, yet insists that he has done nothing wrong.

The President was reluctant to accept the resignation of Gonzalez from his post as Attorney General, or so it is reported. Bush also believes that his good friend and ally has done no wrong. Certainly, a devoted counselor who advised the Administration top officials on methods for violating international law and humanitarian precepts while avoiding prosecution for war crimes should be applauded and not condemned, right? An Administration loyalist who deliberately looked the other way while White House functionaries openly violated the Presidential Archives Act by conducting business through a clandestine e-mail system operated by the Republican National Committee and included communications with high Justice Department officials is to be rewarded and not roasted. Indeed, President George W. Bush assessed Gonzalez as a “man of integrity, decency and principle” who had been hounded from office for political reasons. It is not quite clear what the “political” reasons might be when top Republican Judiciary Committee members opined that the lack of honesty and integrity displayed by Gonzalez bordered on the criminal.

The crisis that the United States of America currently faces is not simply the lawlessness and venality that has been taking place at the expense of American freedoms and its public fisc. The true crisis is the lack of moral consciousness of its leadership that fosters and encourages corrupt decisions and actions. In Psychological parlance, the condition would be deemed “sociopathic.” One who is without regard for social norms of right and wrong and acts without regard for the adverse and potentially lethal consequences of his or her actions on others is a sociopath. How else to rationalize the conduct of Gonzalez, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Libby and others?

Perhaps the greater danger and worst potential damage arising from the present crisis lies in the failure of Congress to fulfill its Constitutional responsibility to hold these malfeasors accountable and block their further destructive conduct. Instead of forcefully blocking harmful and counterproductive actions and policies, Congressional leaders seem content to tolerate the Administration’s continued prosecution of illegal and ill conceived policies and operations. Treating the Bush Administration in this fashion is a bit like treating Jesse James and Al Capone as wayward children who just liked to steal things and maybe kill a few people if they got in the way. Any responsible and rational person knows different and would deem it necessary to stop such conduct and hold the transgressors accountable.

Is It Any Wonder?

The progress of the “Mission” in Iraq, or lack thereof, has many Americans wondering who is truly in charge of the mission and the current disaster that has been created. The White House insists upon pursuing as a matter of policy if not principle. Clearly, the President has shown his lack of experience and competence to actively direct the mission. His assiduous avoidance of any substantive contact with actual military duty or training and his consistent record of unsuccessful management of any major enterprise prior to his election as President are public record. Bush is the Commander in Chief and the civilian leader of the armed forces, but that role rarely translates to actual battlefield command. Expecting George W. Bush to undertake direct command of the military mission would be unspeakable and negligence.

The military is founded upon the principle of rank and "chain of command." Soldiers are tasked to execute orders as directed by their superiors. Under this structure, at least in theory, the responsibility for the development of strategy and delivery of orders for the soldiers to follow lies with the top brass. When the stakes are extremely high and the movement, coordination and direction of a complex group of military personnel and equipment is involved, lower level soldiers cannot reasonably be expected to determine policy while facing the dangers of their daily duties. Unless the soldier has deliberately disobeyed a direct order, the responsibility for execution lies with the chain of command. At the same time, the expenditure of billions of dollars from the public treasury and the loss of thousands of soldiers’ lives demands that the military be accountable to the American people. The theory is that the power to command troops and vast resources is accompanied by the responsibility for how the mission is carried out and the actions of soldiers under one's command.

Congress has been investigating a relatively minor military incident that has rather large implications for the military and for the American people. Pat Tillman, an all-American athlete with an all but guaranteed lucrative NFL career chose to enter the military rather than play professional sports after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. Whether or not Tillman was misguided because of the Administration lies that led the US into the Iraq mission, he nevertheless believed that he was committed to a patriotic cause and serving his country by enlisting. Unfortunately, his service ended as a result of a botched mission and “friendly fire,” meaning that he was shot down by US soldiers and not the “enemy.” These events alone would be tragic. The tragedy was grossly compounded when the Army, the Department of defense and the White House trumpeted his death as an act of heroism based upon asserted death at the hands of Al Qaeda extremists. His death was used as a public relations gemstone for the President’s Iraq mission.

In fact, the Army knew that Tillman had not died as publicly announced. Other soldiers present at the battlefield incident were admonished to keep their mouths shut. False reports were submitted and news of the real circumstances was conveyed to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Yet the Pentagon and the Bush Administration continued to lie to the Tillman family and use them cynically and publicly to promote public support for the Iraq Mission. More than five weeks later, the Tillman family was finally alerted to the fact that the initial reports were untrue. No member of the top brass was willing to acknowledge that the facts of Tillman’s death were suppressed in order to exploit Tillman’s death for political purposes.

And this is where the larger implications arise. Secretary Rumsfeld publicly acknowledges that mistakes were made and that the system that he was responsible for directing failed. Yet he denies that he has any personal responsibility for the cover up of facts and failure to disclose the truth to the Tillman family. Retired Gen. Richard Myers, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, learned of the friendly fire nature of the incident toward the end of April but claimed that it was not his responsibility to inform the White House or the Tillman family. Retired Gen. John P. Abizaid, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, and retired Gen. Bryan Douglas Brown, former commander of the U.S. Special Operations Command also testified before a Congressional Committee also testified that they had no personal responsibility for what happened.

The seemingly obvious question would be, if the top civilian and military leaders charged with commanding the troops and operation of the military mission in Iraq believe that they are not responsible for the execution of the mission, including errors that are committed under their command, who is responsible? In addition, can the American people place any real faith in any President or Congress that places individuals with such lack of integrity and sense of responsibility in such high positions Is it any wonder that the situation in Iraq has devolved into such a quagmire and that there is no sense of clarity in the mission or accountability for its failures when these types of individuals are in command? Is it any wonder that hundreds if not thousands of committed and patriotic soldiers who have seen action in Iraq are refusing to return even at the cost of potential military court martial or loss of their military careers?

Irony in “US Aid” or Another Kind of “String Theory”

Irony – Thy name is “US Aid” or Another “Kind of “String Theory”

Here is a riddle: Why does it make sense to support sending unrestricted billions of dollars in money and equipment each month to Iraq to cause destruction and loss of military and civilian lives without any clear plan to improve the long term situation for the local populace, yet at the same time block spending $35 million dollars to support a clearly established foreign aid plan for construction of a local irrigation system in a drought stricken region in Africa and temporary food shipments to prevent starvation while the irrigation project is built?

Unfortunately, the answer to this riddle is something that can come only from a terribly misguided and confused Congress so caught up in special interest hypnosis that it cannot even think through the policies that it publicly claims to support. The Kenyan government approved the local irrigation project that would enable people in the drought region to turn 1000 acres of arid land into farmland capable of supporting the local populace. It objected, however, to importation of American corn to feed the local population when there was a surplus of corn on the Kenyan market. The American aid laws, however, prohibited purchasing the corn in Africa [at a lower prices, mind you] to supply the locals with sufficient nourishment while the irrigation project was built. The apparent reason for the restriction was that the US farm belt state legislators demanded that all aid money be used only to buy American products for export, even though the stated purpose of the aid bill was to help distressed foreign projects, not as a domestic subsidy for US farmers [provided by a separate farm Aid Bill]. Beyond this irrational policy implementation, the squabbling to begrudge starving people trying to survive by building a self sustaining source of food of a mere $35 million while shipping billions of dollars in bombs and military equipment to sustain an occupation force that has no demonstrable purpose seems a misguided priority, if not totally absurd.

UN World Food Program revealed in a recent report the ability to provide 75% more actual food aid to distressed and starving people in Africa by purchasing the food in Africa and redistributing it where the hunger and famine existed. The major obstacles contributing to loss of life in famine and drought stricken regions seem to be lack of infrastructure, ineffective distribution of existing resources and political instability. This suggests that prudent money management would require the US Administration to maximize the effectiveness of aid dollars by purchasing the necessary food products where the lowest available price coincides with the lowest transportation and importation costs. The Kenyan government could be faulted for not redistributing the food within its own country to address the starvation problems. However, even that effort requires money.

If the US government were to give the same aid dollars to the Kenyan government for the purpose of buying food locally for the aid project there would still be greater effectiveness than trying to import American corn. Acknowledging that potential of corruption could divert funds from the intended purpose, the Kenyan government would permit the internationally respected World Vision charity to achieve its humanitarian mission by purchasing corn on the Kenyan markets to support the irrigation project. But then the statutory restriction on US aid dollars prevented those local purchases. The result is that promises were broken and women and children died of starvation while the irrigation project was being built. It now supports farming that allows local farmers to distribute excess produce to the needy in the area. This is progress. But the cost of unnecessary loss of life from cruel and agonizing starvation could have been avoided had special interest blinded legislators released the choke hold on the aid and allowed the money to be used most effectively to achieve the intended purpose.

"Support Our Troops" – Let’s Start With Being Honest

In the vitriolic public debate about the quagmire resulting from the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, the phrase “support our troops” is frequently tossed about. Quite frequently it is used as a talisman to fend off any careful and rational discussion of an appropriate strategy. Supporters of the Administration argue that any criticism of the US involvement in Iraq fails to support or even undermines the US troops fighting there. Their reasoning is that once troops are deployed, any critique or criticism of their mission is disloyal and may be disheartening to the troops. They argue that such discussion is advocacy for "surrender" and that the US must stay and "win" the conflict. This argument is both facile and dishonest. It is possible to support the men and women serving their country admirably in the field of battle and still question the basis for their deployment and the reasons for their being placed in harm’s way. Moreover, if there is not discernible strategy or prospect for success, then talk of "winning" is a deception or a delusion.

One fact that seems to be missing in the use of the “support the troops” argument is that the job of soldiers is to execute orders, not to make policy. The fundamental basis for the “chain of command” structure that underlies military discipline is that soldiers are required to follow orders and not to question the policy decisions that resulted in those orders. In addition, refusal to follow orders or dissention on the field of battle could cause dangerous situations with potentially lethal consequences. After all, the battlefield is an inherently dangerous place. During the Viet Nam conflict, the public made a serious tactical and philosophical error by blaming the foot soldiers for the results of the orders that they carried out. The American public does not appear to be buying into that same mistake with regard to the Iraq situation.

The broad and firm consensus of the American people is that US military troops stationed in Iraq, or anywhere for that matter, should be provided with the tools that they need to accomplish their assigned mission. No proponent of any legislation offered in Congress has suggested that US military troops be deprived of equipment and resources to carry out their orders. There have been measures introduced in Congress and discussed in the media that fault the Bush Administration for failing to adequately equip troops that the administration deployed in Iraq. The true question is not about providing equipment and funding support for the troops. The issue is whether the equipment and funding should be expended on a mission in Iraq that seems to have no clear strategy, has shown very little if any progress and has shown no reason for optimism that such progress will be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.

The shifting dialogue is turning toward the question whether huge sums of public funds and, more importantly, mounting numbers of US military casualties should be expended in Iraq. Thus, the properly stated question is “how” to support the troops. Are the US troops best supported by a strategy and continuing orders from the Commander in Chief to remain in Iraq and struggle to bring stability to a civil war among competing Iraqi factions, all of whom want the US to leave Iraq? Or, alternatively, are the US troops best supported by a different strategy and orders to redeploy outside Iraq in a manner that enables any necessary response to support allies and legitimate regional interests should the Iraqi internal conflict spill out beyond the current internal civil strife. The sincerity of the Bush Administration's call for support for the troops is belied by the Administration's failure to provide adequate medical care and treatment for the military personel returning from deployment in Iraq. Some would argue that spending a fraction of the iraq budget on universal healthcare would do more to support our military personel [and all Americans] than continuing to pour money into a failed mission that has no military solution.

Using US military personnel as pawns in the political debate is both unfair and disingenuous. While deployed, any public comment by soldiers that challenges the Iraq “mission” could be viewed as a basis for military discipline. Regardless of what an individual soldier may think about the Iraq mission and orders, he or she is duty bound to carry out orders to the best of that soldier’s ability. In fact, many soldiers who have served in Iraq and their families have spoken out publicly [once removed from the battlefield] that they do not believe that the US presence in Iraq is based upon any clear or winnable strategy. They say that without a clear mission and the support of the Iraqi people, the US should withdraw its troops.

In simple terms, if we do not know what we are doing or why we are doing it, we should step back and re examine the mission. If we continue to lose soldiers in a poorly directed and ineffectual venture, there is no reason for staying. This is a justifiable analysis that is based primarily upon function and common sense. As was the case in Viet Nam, the Administration that ordered the troops into battle had no clear idea what the specific mission was or specific objectives to be achieved. "Halting the spread of communism" is a convenient political slogan, but an extremely flawed and useless military strategy. Fighting terrorism is a similarly useless military strategy or justification for deployment of soldiers. That the Bush Administration continues to assert a demonstrably false link between Saddam Hussein or Iraq and the Al Qaeda sponsored attack on the US World Trade Center to support its call for loyalty to its Iraq venture demonstrates the absence of any realistic and cogent strategy.

If one looks beyond the sloganeering to the concrete actions, a plausible conclusion would be that the purpose of deploying US troops in Iraq is to establish some measure of permanent control over Iraqi oil reserves. Despite the fact that the current military effort seems to be failing in that effort as well, the rationale and strategy would explain many of the Bush Administration actions relating to Iraq and a stubborn refusal to reconsider or debate its professed "mission." Such a strategy would explain the move to build permanent military bases in Iraq. It would also explain US demand for Iraqi approval, as a “benchmark” of progress, of an “Oil Sharing”agreement drafted by US representatives with far less favorable terms to Iraqis than any agreement currently in place with any other Middle East oil producing nation. The “Support” that the Bush seeks is not really support for the troops, but rather support for his agenda for establishing a permanent presence in Iraq.

However, as long as the Bush mantra continues to be “support our troops,” more and more Americans will continue to question why the best way to support our military personnel is not to remove them from harm's way in the middle of an Iraqi civil war. This group of Americans from all political walks is growing at such a rate that its presence and momentum has created a political crisis that the Bush Administration is having a very difficult time contending with.

Dear Uncle (Clarence) Thomas

I am writing this letter with all due respect because your ramblings of late seem to indicate that the weight of your responsibilities or the ravages of advancing age seem to have caused your mind to slip more than we, your kin, have noted in the past. We also realize that the rigors of actually trying to construct an opinion for the Supreme Court is more of a burden than you have typically been able to carry for some time. Nevertheless, your opinions in the recent Supreme Court decisions regarding education have caused more than a little embarrassment not only for us, but for you as well.

You have declared in your recent integration related opinion that you do not believe that either children of color or the institutions that serve them benefit from the diversity that derives from integration. In your view, American is the land of freedom and equal opportunity and there is absolutely no reason to consider race in the administration of publicly supported education. To suggest that race may be an appropriate factor in creating balance and diversity, you say, is to demean the Black children by suggesting that they would not be equally successful in segregated schools. This reasoning was previously known as the “separate but equal “doctrine that was struck down by the Supreme Court a half century ago. You also decry the admission of poor Black students to professional schools through any type of affirmative action [like the program at Yale Law School to which you were admitted under a minority set aside]. You complain that such opportunities deceive these Black scholars into thinking that they might be able to compete with their White counterparts. The result, should they fail, would be a devastating emotional blow from which your approach would shield and benevolently protect them.

While I am sure that in your mind [failing though it may be at this point] is convinced and your heart is well meaning, there are a few discrepancies in your reasoning and view of the facts that we feel compelled to point out briefly here. The most obvious would be your own appointment to the Supreme Court, which was clearly driven by race based considerations. No other justice currently on the bench was appointed in the face of compelling evidence of illegal sexual harassment and discrimination against a female subordinate. Your prior career of performance at the EEOC and your prior judicial decisions were less than stellar. Thus, it would be fair to say that you may not have been the most qualified and untarnished candidate for the High Court. Yet the need to fill the seat vacated by the only justice of color apparently carried the day despite your moral and intellectual shortcomings. Your attendance in higher education was a result of a discriminatory family decision to deny your sisters educational opportunity so that you, the male child, could advance your education. Your educational financing was supported by government programs designed to enhance educational opportunity for young poor students of color. But of course, these events are in the past and to be overlooked or forgotten.

So let’s turn to the logic of your current opinions. The programs utilized by the school district in Louisville were not designed nor did they operate to apply admission decisions that single out an individual upon the basis of race. The problem that the system was attempting to address is an historical and complex one that involves demographics of school attendance and residential demographics. Louisville is a metropolitan school district. As a result, the older and less maintained school buildings in the inner city were gradually abandoned for newer buildings in more economically stable or affluent areas. This transition required some measures to balance the assignment of students to different schools in order to avoid creating segregated schools. Their solution involved creating thresholds above which they would apply race as a factor in balancing the demographics of schools, rather than allowing a school to become segregated. In other words, students were not denied admission to the Louisville School System, but were not allowed complete freedom to choose which school they could attend in those limited situations where the school system policy of balance and diversity would be undermined.

With all due respect, your reasoning harkens back to the “separate but equal” doctrine and the prevalence of de facto segregation that perpetuated the deficiencies of deliberate racial discrimination in educational opportunities. The Chief Justice was being intellectually dishonest in suggesting that devices such as geographic school boundaries would solve the problem in a Constitutionally acceptable manner. Recent Supreme Court cases involving gerrymandering of voting districts in the fashion suggested by the majority for school attendance have been viewed as dubious at best. In a world that has become more globally interconnected and in which the ability to comprehend and interact with people of different backgrounds and cultures is imperative, the idea that returning to segregated educational systems is better for Black children is unrealistic if not downright knuckleheaded [respectfully, of course].

Your paternalistic argument that would protect poor Black scholars from the risk of disappointment should they gain admittance to higher education through affirmative action is also flawed. These students’ failure to obtain admittance through “traditional” admissions processes may not be because they are less capable, but rather because the criteria traditionally used have been constructed and applied in a manner that was biased in favor of more affluent white students. In addition, every student of any ethnic background who fails to make the grade in law school is disappointed, many are devastated. But the opportunity to succeed must also be accompanied by the opportunity to fail. Your logic would deny Black students the opportunity to succeed because of the risk that they might fail. Which philosophy is truly more presumptuous and demeaning?

In a perfect world, without the vestiges and the current operation of racial prejudice and exclusionary policies, the opportunity for quality education would be open to all on an equal basis. However, you would need to emerge from the darkened cloak room with your good buddy Scalia in order to notice that the rest of us do not live in such an Eden. The public school system, with all of its flaws and imperfections, is one of the cornerstones for the establishment of the primacy of this country. In the real world, the public educational system has to confront and interface with political system changes and ideological opportunism, with taxation and funding issues, with real estate market realities and with constantly changing and increasing demands for elevated services to provide competitive general education. None of these issues were adequately contemplated by the original drafters of the Constitution, and no amount of “strict constructionist” sophistry can yield a useful and meaningful response to current problems without recognizing the real world facts. Honor the basic and fundamental principles, but you must not do so in a manner that is deliberately ignorant of the real world to which the decisions must be applied.

While your intent may be well meaning, albeit weak minded, the agenda and intent of your colleagues Scalia, Alito and the Chief Justice are far less benign. If you cannot see the weaknesses in your logic and the disconnect with the real world, then perhaps you should honor your own philosophy and consider stepping aside to allow a more competent jurist to take your place, regardless of his or her race.

The New Palestinian Authority – Washington, DC

Beware of rogue nations that seek to export their brand of nationalism through military force, unilateral regime change, economic blackmail and intimidation. Such nations are a threat to world peace and a cancer upon the global society. They violate the very principles of democracy and sovereignty that lie at the foundation of a stable international community. [UN Speech concerning Col. Khadafy of Libya.] This caution is just as valid today. As to naming these present day rogue nations, it is sufficient to state that: “If the shoe fits, wear it.”

Today the United States formally announced that it was restoring full governmental relations and lifting embargoes and sanctions against the Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas. In reality, only the Palestinian Authority on the West Bank will see these changes immediately because the Gaza Strip is now controlled by the Hamas faction of the Palestinian Authority. Abbas, in a legally questionable move, called for the dissolution of the Palestinian government and expelled the duly elected Hamas representatives to set up a new government controlled completely by the Fatah faction. The US has thus anointed its “leader” of the Palestinian people.

It is a reasonable question to ask whether or not the Palestinian people might be better off under the new government. The Palestinian Authority failed for years to break the deadlock with Israel concerning a durable peace or progress toward a two-state solution. However, the question misses a crucial point of democracy. If it were possible to state with certainty that the Palestinian people would be “better off” under the current government [it would depend upon whose viewpoint is considered] , it still would not excuse or cover up the manner in which the government came to power. The current coup d’état or regime change suggests that the President of the United States is better qualified to choose leadership for the Palestinians that the Palestinians themselves.

Hamas has shown little expertise for controlling its internal factions, serving the needs of the Palestinian people or making progress toward a lasting Peace with its neighbors. That party came to power because of frustration with the internal corruption and impotence of the Fatah led Palestinian Authority. Hamas has handled that opportunity with ineptitude and has failed to achieve substantial progress in making the lives of average Palestinians more secure or healthy. The militant wing of Hamas has often refused to follow the lead of the diplomatic wing with tragic and counterproductive results. But one does not need to laud Hamas to justify criticism of the current change in government. Democracy does not guarantee that the people will choose the “best” government [the US electoral system has proven that truth], but rather that the people will have the government that they themselves choose in a free and fair election. Paternalism is not democracy.

This is not new territory for US policy. It does not take a long memory to recall the Fatah leadership of Yassir Arafat to understand that installation of a US backed puppet faction creates an unstable alliance. At some point those puppets are deposed and burned in effigy by the people they rule, or they cut their own strings and turn against their former master puppeteer. Consider Khadafy, Noriega, Osama Bin Laden, Ferdinand Marcos and their ilk as example and object lessons. But George W, Bush was never a good student of anything, and history would definitely be one of his weaker subjects.

The basic point concerns the basic values of the American people? Do we embrace the belief that the ends justify the means and that might makes right? If so, then the US can act without caution or remorse when duplicitously proclaiming itself a “champion of freedom and democracy.” The truth of what we tell others is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that the US acts with force to impose the President's view of what is best for those most directly affected or what is in the US' own self interest [not necessarily in that order]. The US can praise the Palestinian people for conducting a free and fair election, and then act to depose the people’s chosen government [that the US President does not like] “for the Palestinian’s own welfare.” It makes the business of government less messy than in a true democracy. After all, if Abbas does not do what the Bush administration tells him to do, they can just as easily remove him without bothering to consult the Palestinian people.

The world and international relations would be so much simpler if it would just accept the President of a rogue nation as World Dictator [or is the "Decider"] , or else!

Bush’s Middle-East Bungling and Bankruptcy

No one doubts the tragic and senseless loss of life now taking place on the Gaza Strip in the Middle East as a result of the armed factional fighting and power struggle between Hamas and Fatah. In one sense, only the militant factions themselves are to blame for their inhumane reaction to their current plight and the resort to ruthless violence. It is a struggle to be "King of the Hill" in a situation where the "hill" is not worth conquering, certainly not at the cost of so many lives. Yet the conditions that have led to this crisis are a product of actions on a larger geopolitical scope.

"Five years ago this month, President Bush stood in the Rose Garden and laid out a vision for the Middle East that included Israel and a state called Palestine living together in peace. "I call on the Palestinian people to elect new leaders, leaders not compromised by terror," the president declared." [Washington Post, 6/15/2007].

Within that declaration can be found the duplicitous intent marking the Bush Administration’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Bush may have given lip service to a “two-state” solution, but there has been no demonstrated commitment to actually achieving or promoting that objective. Bush called upon the Palestinians to conduct a free and fair election. They did so, but favored representation by the Hamas Party. Bush and the Israeli government really meant that the Palestinians should have a free election – as long as they chose to elect leaders that Bush and Tel Aviv considered preferable.

For their part, Hamas was probably as surprised as anyone by the outcome of the vote. They admitted that the Hamas Party was more of a reactionary community defense organization that had few seasoned “politicians” trained and ready to take the reins and govern the Palestinian Authority and to engage in foreign policy processes. Hamas reached out to Fatah for a coalition. But for the meddling intervention by the US and Israel, there might have been a chance for real progress. However, without at least trying tp respect the democratic vote of the Palestinians, the US and Israel immediately declared the Palestinian plebiscite illegitimate and refused to work with Hamas. Instead, they imposed harsh economic sanctions and withheld sorely needed taxes legitimately due the Palestinian people, pressure apparently intended to force the Palestinians to change their mind and make the "correct" choice about their elected representative.

Thus, through bungled attempts at threat and intimidation, a potential opportunity to foster a pragmatic moderation of Hamas views and behavior was ignored. The Bush Administration only reinforced the sense of injustice and oppression that led the Palestinian people to turn in desperation to Hamas in the first place. Now, after years without demonstrable progress and continued disrespect and suppression of the Palestinian people by Israel and the US, Hamas has taken the position that a coalition with Fatah has been a failure. If Hamas joined with Fatah to obtain a sense of international legitimacy and to support diplomatic initiatives, experience seems to indicate to them that Fatah has failed to deliver the promised goods. Keep in mind that Israel has continued to arrest attack and kill Hamas leaders even when they have no evidence that the individuals attacked have actually engaged in any terrorist actions. Therefore, why bother to allow Fatah to control the Palestinian Authority any longer when Hamas is the duly elected representative? While this thinking and change of position is unlikely to improve the situation for the Palestinian people, the true victims in this debacle, the frustration of Hamas is at least understandable.

The Bush Administration is prone to simplistic labels and sound bites, rather than careful and thoughtful analysis. The Administration seems unable or unwilling to embrace pragmatic policies that require hard work and courage. Rather than just label Hamas a “terrorist” organization [even though the military wing of the Hamas Party has shown proclivity for indiscriminate violence], the Bush Administration could have done the hard and honest work of analyzing why the Palestinian people turned to Hamas. The severely depressed economic conditions they have lived in, and the treatment from Israel that President Carter characterized as akin to “apartheid” policies, has fostered a deep sense of despair and frustration among Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank. Instead of approaching the situation in a thoughtful and constructive manner, Bush simply declared the democratic choice of the Palestinian people to be WRONG, and that the US would refuse to respect that choice. Bush encourages and supports Israel in its continued economic strangulation of the Palestinians.

Hamas portrayed itself as the only “champion” of the people. Whether or not that was an honest representation of Hamas motives, it was the best option or perhaps the only option that the Palestinian people could see on the horizon. When you have no hope, you tend to focus on today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Palestinian factions have turned on each other in their despair and sense of hopelessness and helplessness. Equally unfortunately, there are always opportunists who are ready to supply weapons in such situations rather than real aid and support. Guns are easier and more profitable to deliver than medical and humanitarian assistance.

Israel legitimately complains about rocket attacks by Palestinian militants and insurgents. These attacks are wrong, unjustifiable criminal acts. The current situation in Baghdad clearly demonstrates that when you have a near total breakdown of infrastructure, economic systems and political cohesion it is nearly impossible to control and eliminate rogue militant insurgent attacks. The situation in the Palestinian territories is not much different. To pretend that either Fatah or Hamas has complete control of such activities is like declaring that the streets of Baghdad are safe because Nouri Al-Maliki has been installed as the Iraqi Prime Minister. It is a foolish assertion.

The response by Israel of sending in attack helicopters to blow up buildings or tanks to kill children does more to worsen the problem than to decrease the bloodletting. There certainly is no leadership, pressure or encouragement from the Bush Administration counseling less reactionary measures. The decades of blood feuds and an ironic sense of complacency about chronic conflict provide limited constituency in Israel for supporting sustained peace initiatives at this time. And to do so is admittedly very difficult when it is hard to identify a reliable negotiating partner with whom to build a trusting and respectful relationship. Yet no such negotiating partner is likely to emerge unless the economic and humanitarian plight of the Palestinian people improves to the point where they perceive some hope for the future. And as long as the US encourages and supports military reactions rather than diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives, the situation will only deteriorate further [if that is even possible].

“After his reelection in 2004, Bush said he would use his "political capital" to help create a Palestinian state by the end of his second term. In his final 18 months as president, he faces the prospect of a shattered Palestinian Authority, a radical Islamic state on Israel's border and increasingly dwindling options to turn the tide against Hamas and create a functioning Palestinian state. “ [Washington Post 6/15/2007]

It is a further tragedy that Bush has no more political capital and has no clue as to why his inept foreign policy has contributed to the worsening state of affairs . The level of incompetence of the Bush Administration on so many fronts is truly astounding.

BLOGITOS: June 13, 2007

GUN REGISTRATION LAW: The House of Representative just passed a measure that will not only require states to automate and share information regarding individuals disqualified from legally purchasing handguns, but also provide limited funds to support the process of state level automation and information sharing. The FBI already maintains a database [NICS] of individuals barred from legal gun purchases. However, states do not routinely forward such information, for reasons of politics or antiquated record systems. So background checks are not terribly effective or reliable.

The gunman [terrorist?] in the Virginia Tech massacre was deemed mentally unstable and should have been prohibited from purchasing the two guns he used in the shooting. The unfortunate aspect of the measure is that it took a tragedy for Congress to act on a measure that is pure common sense and should have been addressed years ago. It is the typical government response of putting up a traffic light only after several people have gotten killed in accidents at a dangerous intersection.

HONESTY ALERT: A recent alert has been raised at the White House due to a major threat to the security of the Administration. It seems that there has been an insurgent movement of officials willing to actually tell the truth in public and for attribution. Despite strenuous efforts by White House functionaries to stamp out this emerging threat, the damage seems to be spreading as the alien menace grows. In a recent outbreak, the attempts by Vice President Cheney to plant false press stories alleging that the US military had caught Iranian agents “red handed” in the act of supplying arms to Iraqi and Afghanistan insurgents were foiled.

Secretary of Defense Gates publicly denied that any such capture had occurred. At best, he said, the interdiction suggested arms smuggling to drug dealers in Afghanistan, but there was NO EVIDENCE to connect the incident to formal or official Iranian government action. The NATO Command supported Secretary Gates and refuted the Cheney disinformation campaign. Unless checked, this outbreak of truth could cripple the Bush Administration apparatus and could even compel the President to deal honestly with Congress and the American people. Political and Psychology Experts seriously doubt that Bush and Cheney have the ability to tell the truth, and this could lead to a serious crisis for the Bush administration.

LET’S STAND HIM ON HIS HEAD: Many bystanders are scratching their heads about the lack of progress being achieved by the Iraqi Parliament toward the “benchmarks” established by the Bush Administration. Some of the confusion could be dispelled and better understanding gained by simply looking a bit more carefully at the specific “benchmarks” involved and the priority that the Bush Administration places on them.

The highest Bush priority seems to be approval of the draft legislation on oil revenue sharing. A fair question might be asked whether this should be the first order of business. The country is in such chaos that pumping and exporting oil is itself a dicey proposition. Is it truly most important how the revenue is dispersed when the revenue itself is under threat of being cut off? Looking behind the rhetoric about “power sharing” related to oil revenues, the real issue is forcing the vulnerable Iraqi Parliament to adopt a US drafted oil deal that grants to US and multinational oil companies rights and concessions far in excess of the licenses and leasing rights granted by any other OPEC nation.

The Iraqi Parliament has told US envoys that efforts to stabilize the country with some kind of unified security forces and to reduce factional violence are more appropriate priorities that oil legislation. But the Bush Administration will hear none of it. Cheney personally told Prime Minister Al-Maliki that the oil deal must pass soon or the US might be forced to withdraw its support of the current government. [Notice that Cheney DID NOT threaten to leave Iraq.] So the pressure to meet “benchmarks” debate is akin to standing the Iraqi government on its head and then kicking it when it falls down. Now doesn’t THAT make more sense?

MAKING THE LIST: Perhaps you cannot make it on the air as a candidate for the next American Idol or America’s Top Model or the like. It would appear, however, that you have a much better chance of making a different prestigious list - The FBI’s Terrorist Watch List. The most recent report indicates that there are now more than 509,000 currently on the List.

Since the US total population is slightly less than 300 million, and more than 1/3 of those are children, the basic math suggests that you have about a 1 in 400 chance of winding up on the Terrorist Watch List. Those odds are far better than any hope of securing a spot on a dream reality TV show. And let’s be frank, the usefulness of any screening list with more than a half million names is in serious doubt. If grabbing that fleeting chance for celebrity is your goal, then perhaps making the FBI Terrorist Watch List is your best hope.

Common Sense and Politics - The Odd Couple

The raging controversy regarding US Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and the US Senate is not an atypical circus event in the Nation’s Capitol. That is not to say that the events are made less significant by their theatricality. The Senate majority was able to indirectly express their symbolic “no confidence” in Gonzalez by a 53-38 margin. However, that vote was 2 short of the 60 votes required to gain cloture and send the measure to the floor for full debate. In effect, the GOP senators were successful in protecting Gonzalez from a full public airing of the misconduct and incompetence of his leadership of the Justice Department. The GOP faithful would not register their votes as supportive of Gonzalez, a step that would be extremely risky under the circumstances. Instead, they characterized the "no confidence" vote as non-binding and meaningless, since President Bush would not be obligated to take any action based upon the outcome of the vote.

The objective of the Democrats was to create an historic precedent by invoking a public censure of a Cabinet official. A rare occurrence in the history of the nation, it would represent a very significant step. The Democrats also sought to maneuver the GOP senators into casting a public vote representing either an affirmation or rejection of Gonzalez as the Chief Legal Officer of the nation. Of course, a lot of time and energy is spent by legislators in the Capitol attempting to avoid taking a public position on important public policy issues. While the GOP senators can attempt to “spin” the vote results as a purely procedural measure, it can still be effectively used by Democratic candidates to portray GOP senators who voted to block debate as a vote to protect the Attorney General. This latter agenda was properly characterized as “political,” but oddly makes common sense as well. The public and senatorial constituencies deserve to know where their elected representative stands on such an important issue. President Bush, the archetype oppositional and combative personality, has already stated publicly supports Gonzalez and stands by their friendship. More importantly, he will not allow the Senate to decide who is fit to serve in his Administration. Prior examples like Karl Rove and Scooter Libby show that even illegal conduct cannot force Bush to sack one of his loyal minions.

However, “political” was not always considered synonymous with bad. In its original sense, a political act is the effectuation of policy or purpose that furthers the will of the body politic. It is the engine that drives our system of government. The current usage of the term, however, has come to denote venal and self-serving behavior that distorts and abuses the public trust. In its original context, the “political” act of expressing “no confidence” in the Attorney General is a useful and important expression aiding the operation of the government. The Senate has expressed a majority opinion that it lacks faith and confidence in the integrity and competence of Alberto Gonzalez. Consequently, every action advanced by the Justice Department from this point forward bears the stigma attached to the distrust that the Senate holds regarding the competence and integrity of Gonzalez motives.

Keep in mind also that the vote of no confidence was not borne of partisan warfare, but instead based upon actions by Gonzalez that were viewed by members of both parties as of doubtful legality and unquestionably unethical. Members of the GOP have called for Gonzalez to step down. Thus, the “protection” of Gonzalez was a partisan endeavor, but the rebuke was not. In that sense, the Democrats have gained a campaign advantage over GOP incumbents. Any GOP candidate who voted to prevent debate on the “no confidence” measure can be properly cast as having sided with President Bush and supportive of the record of Gonzalez. That could be dangerous ground for a candidate, absent some miraculous recovery by Bush in the remaining months of his term.

As a practical matter, and based upon common sense, Alberto should resign. There is little question that nothing other than ego keeps him in his position. He cannot effectively lead the Justice Department. Many of the most talented lawyers within the management ranks of the agency have either resigned or tried to distance themselves from the Attorney General. Others with relatively lesser credentials have been elevated to positions of authority because of their political loyalty rather than their acumen or demonstrated qualifications. When former officials believe that they must demand immunity in order to testify under oath before Congress regarding their actions and communications with Gonzalez, common sense should dictate a departure of the Attorney General for the good of the Justice Department and the nation. However, the ethos of the Bush Administration has consistently placed personal power, arrogance and deceitful manipulation over the public welfare and effective ethical government.

President Bush has been informed by leaders of his own party that he has lost all credibility with Congress and the American people. Alberto Gonzalez is, if possible, in a position of even lower esteem. Yet both have vowed to stay the course. Sen. Charles Schumer, a sponsor of the “no confidence” resolution, stated: “When a majority of the Senate votes no confidence in a cabinet officer, it says a lot. He ought to have the decency himself to resign. Clearly, he is not up to the job.” Gonzalez rebuffed such criticism and stated that he intends to: “be focusing on what the American people expect of the attorney general of the United States and this great Department of Justice.” If that is true, it will perhaps be the first time in his tenure he will be doing so.

Lieberman’s Lunacy

Today’s announcement by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former candidate for US Vice President, underscores the seriously defective process that yields national candidates in both major parties. Sen. Lieberman did little to endear himself to the American people during his bid for national leadership. His incoherent and often inconsistent views on policy issues left many with the feeling that he was lacking in firm principles and integrity. He was attacked unfairly because of his religion, but there were substantial other grounds for doubting his qualifications. His tenure in the Senate was touted as a solid credential, but that tenure seemed to lack any serious track record of legislative successes on initiatives relating to major national or foreign policy.

In his latest bid for re-election, Lieberman was deemed so out of touch with the mainstream Democratic electorate that he failed to garner the Democratic Party endorsement. He ran instead as an "independent"candidate with strong support from the GOP. His victory in the election has yielded an unpredictable vote in a Senate body astruggling to adjust to retaking the majority leadership. Lieberman has been allowed to caucus with Democrats, primarily because they hope for his support in pushing majority measures. However, he defects from that Democratic position as often as not, and cannot be counted upon to support measures that he previously has appeared to support. Obviously, the campaign process failed to properly expose to the public Lieberman's true character and leadership strengths and deficiencies.

The latest announcement has Sen. Lieberman suggesting that the United States should consider military action against Iran. Most diplomats and experienced military professionals deem the advocacy of a current unilateral military strike against Teheran to be the ravings of a lunatic. Not only is there a lack of proof that Iran presents a current and imminent threat to the US or its allies, but the US military is already overcommitted in its failing mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. There is little doubt that the US military forces could not sustain another major military engagement with any hope of success on any of the fronts. In short, we have our hands more than full trying to deal with the messes in which President Bush has already ensnared us.

Aside from the logistical and practical infeasibility, the fiasco in Iraq should have taught any rational leader that diplomacy has to be the device of first choice and military intervention the option of last resort in resolving such strategic differences so far from American shores. It is difficult to envision what constituency Lieberman believes he is speaking for in taking this outrageous and irrational position. There are some right wing extremists in Israel who profess to invite a military confrontation against Iran. It would provide an excuse for use of the advanced military weaponry that Israel could deploy against their Shiites enemies. However, that extremist faction is still trying to deal with the failure of its agenda in the recent Southern Lebanon conflict. The massive military superiority and blundering overconfidence led to humiliation. So championing the cause of those Israeli hawks would be folly.

Given the mounting doubrts and disaffection of the American public toward the Iraqi invasion and occupation, it is difficult to imagine what factions would follow the “leadership” Lieberman might provide for an assault on Teheran. If one is going to “lead,” it would seem logical that one needs followers. Who exactly are these followers of the Lieberman doctrine?

So it would seem that the American people dodged a bullet when Lieberman was defeated. Hindsight is very accurate perspective however. In dodging that bullet, the people seem to have stepped right into the path of a mortar shell named George W. Bush. How sad and dangerous that the current political process yields the least capable statesmen and leaders when the United States and the world need those that are the most capable.

The Economic Dislocation of Executive Pay

There is a pervasive sense among the public that something is wrong with the system and the philosophy of executive pay in Corporate America. A recent report of executive compensation revealed that over half of CEO’s in large corporations are paid $7.1 million annually. The lowest paid in the survey was paid over $450,000. These figures do not necessarily include the value of all perks to these CEO's. The term “earned” lies at the foundation of the debate and thus is avoided for purposes of discussion here. Over the past decade, the disparity between top executive pay has widened to the point that CEO pay is in excess of 75 times the average pay of non-executive employees in the same companies. The debate goes beyond any “class warfare” arguments. The essential question goes to corporate governance and whether a responsible Board of Directors could rationally justify the high compensation and perks awarded to these CEO employees. This issue has come under increased scrutiny as executives are given tens of millions in “severance” package compensation when the company they were charged to lead experienced very substandard performance, in some instances bankruptcy.

Many of the arguments put forward to justify such compensation lack coherence and substance. No one argues that high levels of talent and performance should be denied high levels of compensation. However, there seems to be very limited positive correlation between the actual performance of the Companies and the level of compensation paid to the CEO. For example, the argument is used that corporations must pay very high compensation levels to attract and keep “star quality” executives. The example of pro athletes is advanced as a model. However, one would be hard put to find a pro athlete who is paid more than $71 million per year in salary alone. Athletes like LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods and others earn their high compensation levels through a combination of sports competition, performance incentives, sponsorship contracts and investment ventures. In addition, they must consistently perform at very high competitive levels that are evident to the public in order to maintain such high compensation levels. The CEO of Yahoo who was paid the highest compensation among those in the survey led a corporation whose stock and profit performance have consistently trailed that of Google.

Another area in which the purported justifications fail to hold water lies in the size of the gap in compensation. Companies that are laying off tens of thousands of employees still pay tens of millions of dollars to the CEO in annual compensation. A general sense of equity and logic suggest that the excess funds could be more effectively used for the benefit of the corporation and its shareholders by investing them in measures to improve plant and equipment, upgrades to technology or other steps to improve competitive performance rather than rewarding substandard performance of the chief executive.

In a simplistic sense, “executive” entails the inherent concept of “execute” or performance. If the CEO fails to develop and execute a profitable strategy, the diversion of corporate assets to an extremely high compensation package seems illogical. It is true that some strategies require time to develop and implement and stability of leadership is a valuable asset. Like any investment, the CEO should accept risk and receive reward based upon thye success of the venture. However, if the CEO lacks faith in his or her own strategy and ability to successfully implement that strategy, why should that CEO be rewarded and compensated in advance of demonstrated results?

Ultimately, the economic dislocation affects the entire economy and becomes a public interest issue. In general terms, it makes little sense for the government to get into the business of regulating executive pay. The mechanisms of corporate governance and shareholder accountability, if functioning properly, should rectify gross abuses. However, the public has seen too many examples of late where such accountability is not functioning and the resulting consequences have created havoc and serious damage to the public. The collapse of Worldcom and Enron and similar scandals demonstrate that the negative consequences of failed corporate governance fall on helpless pensioners, employees and government coffers. In this sense, the government is already “involved” in regulation at some level.

One way to encourage accountability is transparency. Recent statutory requirements that CEO’s and CFO’s sign and attest to the accuracy of financial reports is a sore point for many corporate executives, but does require an increased level of transparency for public companies. Another more aggressive approach might be to link the tax deductibility of executive pay as a “legitimate” business expense to some concrete measures of corporate capitalization and profitability. If a corporation was losing millions of dollars, for example, the IRS could simply prohibit the deduction of any CEO and senior management compensation beyond some level based upon minimum compensation to CEO’s of corporations of the same class. For example, the survey mentioned is based upon corporate reporting required by law. It showed salary compensation of the lowest paid CEO at around $450,000.

The suggested proposal would not prohibit a corporation that is losing money from paying a $10 million salary to its CEO. However, only $450,000 would be tax deductible as an expense. The Board of Directors would thus be required to justify to shareholders the basis for the excess compensation that cut into operating capital. Additionally, the level of deductibility could be tied to a percentage of corporate profits. The logic of the proposal is that the Board of Directors could fashion any level of compensation package they chose. However, the taxpayer subsidy for the compensation would be limited by actual performance by the executive. This is not undue government regulation; it is instead the limitation of government subsidies for irrational and undeserving purposes that provide no benefit to the public. It would represent sound tax policy to combat government welfare to the wealthy. Most of the public believe that getting by on $7 million per year, instead of $70 million, would not be an undue hardship for a CEO whose performance has not been shown to be stellar. Many would be ecstatic to "get by"on a tenth of that lesser amount.

Gullibles’ Travels – Chapter One

Once upon a time a people existed who were thought to be the most progressive, advanced and intelligent society on the planet. They had led the planet in technological advancement, were admired for their economic resourcefulness and were respected as strong and reliable allies. Internally, they enjoyed open and passionate debate over any and everything. Whether the topic was the best way to serve eggs for breakfast or the soundness of the country’s defense strategy, the debate was passionate and free.

These people, the “Gullibles” had a system of selecting their leaders that most of the people believed to be fair and reliable. Indeed, most of the people were so comfortable and complacent with the system, believing that the differences between the choices for leadership were so small, that they sometimes neglected to even cast their vote. From time to time, the people heard rumors that their leaders had been involved in unfairly exploiting other peoples, arguments that religion should be the driving force in government policies and theories that the rich should be heavily favored in government policies at the expense of the poor as opposed to measures designed to provide for the general welfare of the people. The Gullibles generally paid little attention to these rumors, believing them to be crackpot extremists that the majority of all Gullibles would never take seriously. There were even rumors that sinister ideological technology geeks were plotting to corrupt the system of selecting leaders to manipulate the outcomes of elections. Again, these rumors were dismissed as the ravings of conspiracy theorists.

There came a time when these people were caught up in a change of leadership. The newly elected leaders were chosen by a razor thin margin that even required the highest judicial sages of the land to decide who the actual winner of the election was. In several areas of the land, large groups of people complained that they had been discouraged or prevented from casting their vote for leadership. THey even brought forth proof of the mishandling of elections, flaws in the electronic machines that counted the votes and actions that intimidated poor and elderly voters from getting to the polls. These tended to be poor people and so their complaints were dismissed.

The new leadership took control and declared that there would henceforth be a "new way" of governing the people. According to the new President, taxes were cut for the richest of the people so that the economy would grow for the benefit of all. Economic resources for education, health care and relief to the poor would be cut in order to run a more efficient government, he said. If the poor needed help, he declared, religious organizations and charity should be the organizations to provide such help according to their beliefs. If the poor were not of the same religious beliefs, then they were obviously not deserving of aid. He declared that those people and governments in foreign lands that did not agree with his beliefs were “evil” and were enemies. To address this problem, the new President of the Gullibles increased the funding for the military.

Several groups of people on the planet had taken the advice of internationally respected scientists and came together to reach an accord on ways to reduce pollution and hydrocarbon emissions that were a long term threat to the welfare of all people on the planet. The new President of the Gullibles declared that there was no scientific evidence that such a problem existed. Although his lands were responsible for the single largest contribution of hydrocarbon emissions, he declared that the land of the Gullibles would not cooperate in the accord. The Vice President met secretly with the heads of the major oil and energy companies and developed an energy policy that would make their companies more profits. The President thanked the Vice President and ordered the Congress to approve this policy. Because the Congress was led by a majority of representatives of the president’s political party, Congress did as they were told. They ignored the cries of dissent that adopting such an important policy without allowing for the open debate that the people had previously enjoyed and expected was unwise and unfair. The critics were labeled as unpatriotic.

Some people expressed concern that the steps taken by the new President of the Gullibles were harmful to the people, to the diplomatic relationships around the planet and to the welfare of the planet itself. However, media channels that broadcast information to the people assured them that the President had declared that he, and only he, knew what was best for the Gullibles. He had stated that what he was doing was what the Gullible really wanted. If a media outlet broadcast a different viewpoint, the President no longer allowed members of that media organization into press conferences and cut off their access to news releases from the President’s office. So the media faithfully reported what the President told them to broadcast.

Believing that things were pretty much under his control and moving in the direction that he wanted, the President of the Gullibles started on his secret plans to attack leaders of other peoples that disagreed with him and that he considered personal enemies.

TO BE CONTINUED……

Toss Another Stone on the Pile

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.

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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.”