Leadership and Trust

The President goes on the offensive declaring how every day that Congress does not provide emergency funding for his war effort undermines and endangers the troops. His spokesmen have hit the media circuit trumpeting the same message. "Either give President Bush unconditioned emergency military funding immediately, or you are undermining the war effort and failing to support the troops." This is a clear and unequivocal soundbite.

The major problem is that it is an outright lie. The most recent Congressional Budget Office Report states that the war effort could continue without negative impact on the basis of funds already appropriated by Congress until at least July 2007. And further, if Congress approved transfers of funds among Military budget accounts, existing funding could extend for an additional two months or more without any additional funding from Congress.

Let us set aside the question of whether it makes sense to send additional troops into Iraq for the latest "surge," a strategy that so far has resulted in MORE casualties and violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas. Whether or not the strategy is well reasoned or working as planned, the President has urged the American people to trust him and give his plan a change to work. When the President of the United States will come before the public and deliberately misrepresent the facts, and for no real practical purpose other than ego and arrogance, why on earth should the public extend him the benefit of doubt. No one doubts that additional funding will be required at some point, unless Bush decides to abruptly end US occupation in Iraq. Even a phased redeployment that Congress has called for would require additional funding. But why lie to the American people and attempt to bully Congress based upon knowing false statements?

There is a difference between leadership and intimidation. People follow leaders because they believe in the leader's vision and the ability of that leadership to tackle problems realistically and with a sense of purpose and integrity. Despite repeated calls for Bush to articulate any credible or realistic purpose or plan for this invasion and occupation of Iraq, no coherent vision has emerged. Weapons of mass destruction were never discovered, yet we are still there. Saddam Hussein has been deposed through unilateral invasion for regime change [a violation of international law], yet we are still there occupying Iraq. There is no evidence that the continued occupation is reducing the threat of terrorism in the world, and indeed there is credible evidence that the continued occupation is doing the exact opposite. When asked about a strategy for resolving or concluding US involvement in iraq, Bush only states that it will be the problem of his successor to solve and that he refuses to consider any timetable or benchmarks that would hold his Administration or the Iraqi government accountable for bringing about peace in the war ravaged country.

The strategy of bravado and BS is wearing thin for the American public. When the GOP was in control of Congress and there was no oversight or challenge to Bush initiatives, he could get away with empty rhetoric. Now that he no longer has an automatic smokescreen and rubber stamp Congress, he is required to provide coherent and at least minimally persuasive justification. The American people have a right to expect from the President an explanation of the merits he sees in the choices and commitments that he makes that involve the sacrifice of so many lives and such a large portion of the country's treasury. What the public does not deserve is blatant lies and deception.

Waiting in the Emergency Room at Walter Reed

President George W. Bush made another grandstanding tour of a disaster area. This time, the “disaster” is the deplorable state of repair of facilities and bureaucratic obstruction to providing quality medical care to US military personnel and veterans at Walter Reed Army Hospital. Walter Reed has long been reputed to be the "crown jewel" of military medical care. Recent reports of how low the actual level of care at that facility has sunk during the Bush Administration, and the disrepair of the buildings as well is cause not only for embarrassment, but for alarm.

The attack of the Bush administration against anyone criticizing the Administration’s war in Iraq is a claim that the critics fail to “support the troops.” How then, we might ask, can Bush maintain any credibility in his position or policies based upon this sancrosanct commitment to support for the troops, when he fails to assure that the young men and women of the armed forces that he sends into harms way are assured decent medical care and attention if they are injured while conducting his "mission"in Iraq? Sadly, follow up reports have confirmed that the deteriorated state of military care and facilities at Walter Red is not an aberration, but instead is truly representative of the general deterioration in Military and VA facilities across the country.

Many will recall that dramatic staged event following Hurricane Katrina in which rescue crews were called away from lifesaving duties to set up and secure the Plaza in hurricane ravaged New Orleans so that Bush could declare before the nation on TV that he would take “immediate and decisive” action to address the problem of slow or non-existent relief efforts following that disaster. Eighteen months later, the media finally got around to checking on the progress of that immediate and decisive action only to find that very little has effectively been accomplished in restoring New Orleans. Much money has been wasted, but little has actually gone to rebuild New Orleans. Temporary measures have been slowly put in place, but no one could suggest with a straight face that the type of action promised by Bush has materialized. Just recently, we learned that a company in which the President's brother Jeb was a former partner received a multi-million dollar no-bid contract to install pumps in the levees of New Orleans. Those pumps are defective and would not function effectively to prevent another disaster if an event approaching the magnitude of Katrina were to recur.

The best advice to the injured soldiers who are hopeful of improved levels of care at US Military facilities, from Walter Reed on down, is not to hold their breath. To place great confidence in a promise from George W. Bush that immediate help is on the way would be unwise, at best. Using the Katrina “fix the problem” time frame of this Administration, one had best be prepared for an extended wait in the emergency room. Former President George W. Bush will likely be sitting with Dick Cheney in Dubai sipping cocktails as guests of Halliburton at its new headquarters long before we see any material improvement in the Military hospitals.

Unraveling the Gonzalez Ties That Bind

The handwriting is not only on the wall but pasted on the Billboards, but apparently George W. Bush cannot read the signs. The end of the rope regarding Alberto Gonzales has been reached and there we find a noose tied by Gonzalez himself. Chuck Hagel has criticized the judgment of the Bush Administration with regard to the Iraq invasion as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in the nation’s history. Despite being a Republican and respected Senator, it is understandable that Bush would reject Hagel’s opinion, as he has done with the advice of many reasonably intelligent experts who happen to disagree with the Bush Agenda.

Lindsey Graham expressed concern that the President chose to ignore the detailed and pragmatic recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that was commissioned and conducted under GOP leadership with Democratic participation. Nevertheless, Graham is a party loyalist who has backed the President in his troop buildup in Baghdad, albeit grudgingly. He now publicly questions the integrity and fitness of Gonzalez to continue as Attorney General. This is not good news for George W. Bush and his Administration. When a Senator puts his reputation on the line to back a questionable White House policy, when most others have expressed serious doubt, he deserves at least a receptive ear in the White House. The fact that he has gone public with objections to Gonzalez suggests that the White House has turned a deaf ear to his advice as well.

Arlen Specter built a reputation as Chair of the Judiciary Committee, under the GOP led Senate, of a balanced and thoughtful leader who did his best to reconcile the desires of the White House within the bounds of reason and the law. He did object to the nomination of White House Counsel Meiers for the Supreme Court because there was not a shred of foundation to support the notion that she was qualified to serve in the position. He has again drawn the line with Gonzalez because of the growing mass of evidence that Gonzalez has not only bent [if not broken] the laws of this country too many times and compounded those mistakes by lying to Congress in sworn testimony.

As Specter indicated in a public interview, the country deserves a chief legal officer in whom they can have some confidence as to veracity and adherence to the rule of law. Gonzalez has given ample reason to believe that any such confidence in him is misplaced. And the President proposes to prevent him from testifying under oath before Congress in its investigation regarding possible obstruction of justice in the recent termination of eight or more US Attorneys. There is no rational reason why Congress should waste time questioning Gonzalez unless he is under oath, given the documentation of previous false testimony showing that he is not adverse to deliberate deception and misrepresentation to that body.

Yet because Gonzalez was chosen for the job because of his devotion to George W. Bush, more than for his devotion to the US Constitution, Bush is very reluctant to cut him loose. Perhaps more importantly, Gonzalez is privy to the many closed door meetings in which planning of the Iraq invasion and abuse of authority for domestic spying. The White House has to be more worried about allowing Gonzalez to testify truthfully and the possible ramifications of what he might say under oath if the White House withdraws support for him. The old expression of “no honor among thieves” may aptly apply to White House concerns regarding unreasonable steps to try to protect Libby, Rove and Gonzalez despite their obviously unethical and probably unlawful activities.

But George W. Bush may have no choice regarding continued support for Gonzalez. He has so badly compromised the Justice Department that only his removal could begin the restoration of confidence in the rule of law and US Attorney prosecutorial independence that Americans have a right to expect.

A Failure To Communicate

Borrowing a quote from “Cool Hand Luke,” one could describe the disconnect regarding statements by Congress and the White House regarding the recent removal of US Attorneys. “What we have here is a failure to communicate!” It is entirely possible that Bush and his Administration are speaking sincerely when stating that, in their view, there was nothing wrong in the summary firing of the US Attorneys and replacing them with hand picked political loyalists. Equally sincere are the expressions of outrage by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle that the firings transgress the standards by which the American system of justice has survived. The disconnect lies in a very different set of values held by the members of Congress (or at least their vocal constituents) and the Bush Administration.

The US Constitution permits the Administration to appoint officials who serve at the pleasure of the President. This long standing precedent and practice has generally been thought to enable a sitting President to further his general policy objectives through the appointment of qualified persons who shared or were sympathetic to those policies. Thus, the notion of Presidential prerogative has traditionally meant the ability to further broad administrative policies, such as tax reduction, environmental initiatives, space exploration, health care policies, etc. Generally speaking, the concept has not been applied to allow the President to remove or replace an appointee for absolutely any reason, particularly if the reason is to further an illegal or patently unethical purpose.

In contrast, the Bush Administration follows the interpretation of unitary Presidential power that allows the President to do essentially anything he pleases without limitation and without any effective checks or balances in the exercise of that discretion, short of impeachment. Under that interpretation, firing US Attorneys because they have successfully prosecuted GOP financial supporters and key allies is perfectly acceptable. The concept of “equal justice under the law” does not protect the traditional independence that US Attorneys have maintained in the past. For example, removal by Bush of a female appointee because he preferred a man in the position would not be subject to challenge, despite the US laws against gender discrimination. It is enough that the President no longer wants the appointee in the position. His reason for removal is unconstrained and irrelevant because he is not answerable for his motives.

In addition, there are very different sets of values with regard to “right and wrong.” We have been given a view of the disconnect in this arena by the Downing Street Memos [pretext for iraq invasion], the revelation of the Gonzalez Memo regarding acceptability of torture as an interrogation tactic respecting prisoners or detainees in the Bush War on Terror [violations of International Law and Geneva Conventions], the revelation of extraordinary renditions [violations of human rights and International Law], documented abuses of domestic surveillance authority[violations of US laws] and a litany of other similar instances. In summary, the concept of what is “wrong” held by George W, Bush and his subordinates does not comport with what the majority of this country, regardless of religion, gender, race or socioeconomic status believe to be improper and unethical. The same could probably be said of the rest of the world.

Consequently, it makes perfect sense that the White House would offer to permit aides to speak with Congressional investigators into the firing of US Attorneys only if such discussions occurred in private, without being under oath and without transcripts. We have seen a number of instances where Bush Administration operatives have knowingly and deliberately lied to members of Congress, and the American people, in order to further their political agenda or to shield the Administration from criminal prosecution [See Gonzalez Memo]. Indeed the current furor over the firings has been sparked by misrepresentations and differing accounts of the basis or circumstances of for the removals offered to Congress under oath. So it makes perfect sense that the Administration would not permit aides to come before Congressional investigators unless they are unburdened by the constraint of having to tell the truth and be held accountable for the veracity of their testimony.

Such latitude is often extended as a courtesy to Administration officials at the highest levels because of the sensitivity of certain issues and the desire to gain a better understanding and background into events that the Congress is investigating or policies it is weighing in proposed legislation. The presumption in those instances is that the Administration officials would be truthful and candid, and not intentionally mislead Congress. However, that latitude has traditionallybeen granted based upon a level of trust that has been earned. No such trust has been earned by the Bush Administration, and is definitely not warranted in a situation where the crisis at hand was precipitated by Administration officials lying to Congress.

If George W. Bush and Dick Cheney would deliberately deceive Congressional leaders and Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald in “unofficial” meetings regarding topics as important as the pretext for the invasion of Iraq and the violation of national security laws regarding the outing of a covert CIA operative, what is the probability that subordinates would be truthful in statements to Congress regarding the firing of US Attorneys? To the Bush administration, there is nothing “wrong” with lying to Congress, as long as you do not get caught and if it furthers a political objective of the President. The failure to communicate involves a differing set of ethical values and the difference between Adminstration situational ethics and public's basic concepts or right and wrong.

Chickens Come Home to Roost at Justice Department - Un Huevo Malo

Malcolm X is remembered for an incendiary quote regarding the assassination of President Kennedy, commenting that the “chickens had come home to roost.” What Malcolm X meant at the time was that the tacit support of a subculture of lawlessness and corruption by the ruling establishment had allowed the shadowy elements to conspire and bring down the President of the most powerful nation on the planet. He alluded to a cancer within government and within society. The phrase has become synonymous with being forced to face the consequences that grow out of prior malfeasance and neglect.

That phrase is apt when discussing the current furor over Attorney General Gonzalez and the Justice Department. The Chief Legal Officer and Chief Prosecutor of the United States is supposed to be, first and foremost, loyal to upholding and protecting the US Constitution. Although appointed by the President, the holder of that office is duty bound to follow and enforce the laws of the Nation, regardless of what the president may wish them to be and without regard to the position or person who violates those laws.

When Anthony Gonzalez was nominated as Attorney General, there was little doubt that his primary qualification for the job was not his legal acumen or tough-minded independence as a legal prosecutor and guardian of the Constitution. His performance record patently revealed an intensely loyal political operative who would bend and shape the law to its breaking point or beyond in order to protect the interests and career of his “boss” George W. Bush. At the time of his nomination and confirmation to the Attorney General post, there had already been public disclosure of his involvement in authoring and approving a memorandum that suggested that his “boss” could get away with torture of prisoners of war and that the Geneva Conventions could be circumvented. He was instrumental in providing practical advice to the White house that might minimize convictions for War Crimes based upon actions that he knew they planned to take or support.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to learn that certain US Attorneys were “rated” on a list exchanged between White House Counsel and the Justice Department, based upon their political loyalty to the GOP agenda and whether they were aggressive enough in prosecuting Democratic opponents prior to the 2004 and 2006 elections. The hand of Karl Rove has also been exposed in urging the Justice Department to take a “serious look” at identified US Attorneys who might be pushed out for lack of greater enthusiasm for advancing the GOP political agenda than advancing the fair and independent enforcement of the laws of his country. Rove was involved in communicating to Gonzalez that the White House backed complaints from GOP Senators and representatives that they were not getting adequate political support from the US Attorneys in attacking their political rivals.

Current headlines blare the “news” that the White House was intimately involved in the recent firings of at least eight US Attorneys. Many of the firings cannot be rationally justified by any reason other than arbitrariness and a desire to further a GOP political agenda. The White House calls this a question of “performance” in adhering to the Administration “policies.” Unfortunately everything that is clearly bad is not necessarily illegal. The GOP controlled Congress slipped an obscure provision into the Patriot Act reauthorization that allowed the Attorney General to make “indefinite” interim appointments of US Attorneys without going through the usual process of input from Senators and confirmation by Congress. We now know that the provision was a set piece in a strategy advanced by White House Counsel to permit the summary firing of ALL US Attorneys and replacing them with political hacks and operatives who would enforce the laws against targeted opponents and in compliance with White House directives. This was another tool of the Imperial Presidency scheme.

Congress, now in ostensible control of Democrats, is set to hold hearings on the purported scandal concerning the political firings of supposedly independent US Attorneys. The REAL story lies in the negligence and failure of these same members of Congress to protest in emphatic terms the appointment of Gonzalez in the first place. This outcome was clearly predictable, given the track record of the Attorney General appointee. Calls for ouster of Gonzalez at this point are quite tardy. At the risk of sounding a bit cynical, why would bush want to fire a fierce loyalist who is the first line of defense against the likely prosecution of Administration officials for malfeasance in office? Patrick Fitzgerald was an aberration that surprised the Administration by indicting Scooter Libby. But even his level of ”independence” was not sufficient to permit him to indict Rove and Cheney for what is not manifest violation of the law in deliberately disclosing the identity of a covert CIA operative. It is illogical to expect that Bush and Rove would voluntarily abandon the prophylactic net they have constructed against prosecution. For Democrats and Congress as a whole, the chickens have now come home to roost. And the evidence is a very bad egg sitting in the middle of the nest.

What's In a Label?

An editorial article published today in the Boston Globe decries the deteriorating state of clinical psychological and psychiatric diagnosis in this country. The gist of the article, written by a clinical psychologist, is that the current rush to “label “behaviors is gaining such momentum that the labels have begun to lose their reliability and usefulness.

Unfortunately, the article has great merit. The writer posits examples of a 2 year old diagnosed with “bipolar” disorder, and a violent stabbing suspect diagnosed with Asperger’s Syndrome. As he aptly points out, the chaotic array of stimuli experienced by a 2 year old in the normal course of child development would make accurate diagnosis of bipolar disorder highly unreliable, if not impossible in a child that young. Moreover, the purpose of such diagnosis would be highly suspect as well. The reference to Asperger’s Syndrome in the case of the student stabbing incident is also of doubtful relevance, as the condition has nothing to do with violent behavior.

In an era of “sound bites” and quick fixes we are all too quick to slap a label on behavior. The pressure is to brand some behavior as pathological in an attempt to find a quick “answer” to the present apparent problem. Typically that “fix” involves medicating the person to near comatose status in order to neutralize the perceived pathology. Obsessed with TV programs like CSI, ER, House and others of that ilk, we try to establish some easy or quick diagnosis and solution within the allotted time, between commercials, of an hour long Program. Real life does not fit within the confines of network programming, and real life problems are infinitely more complex.

Meaningful and effective solutions require that the root of the problems be examined and understood to some degree. A school child acts out and is promptly labeled ADD or hyperactive. Medication is the typical response to calm or quiet the child. Too often, the acting out behavior is simply a symptom of a deeper and more complex problem that medication will only mask and prevent from being discovered and understood. For example, the parents of an unruly child being subjected to abuse at home may be more than willing to agree to medication. Denial of the abusive circumstances or underlying problems prompting the acting out behavior deflects attention from the parenting role. The child winds up further damaged by the quick fix approach. And there are countless other examples. Yet the health care industry bureaucracy typically demands a swift labeling and short term response. It is more concerned with "illness" than it is with "wellness."

Until we collectively take more time to carefully examine and understand the many upsets, variations and eruptions in the Human Condition, we will find ourselves more densely populated but drifting farther and farther from Humanity. Diagnosis that is unreliable will often lead to non-treatment or mistreatment. Without careful and appropriate diagnosis and treatment, we cannot hope to solve or cure real problems. Ironically, our impatience and unwillingness to take more time in individual cases may well cause the clock of our existence as a humane and civilized society to run down more quickly. Once we each have our own pathology label, what then?

George W. Bush - "The Prevaricator"

In one of the opening salvos of his 2004 Presidential bid, John Kerry bluntly characterized George W. Bush and his Administration as one of the worst “bunch of liars” he had seen in national government. Following vicious attacks by Fox media and CNN reporters that Kerry’s remarks were “disrespectful” of a sitting President, he backed off. Perhaps if he had been more steadfast in his resolve and criticism, public attention to the habitual and deliberate prevarication, misrepresentation and disinformation from the White House might have been greater. It was one of those campaign choices where being popular was more important that being candid.

The Bush Administration stated publicly that it did not manipulate intelligence reports to support a preconceived plan to invade Iraq. The Downing Street Memos confirm that such statements were knowingly false. The “intelligence was fixed around the policy,” not the reverse. The Bush Administration stated that there were “weapons of mass destruction,” including biological weapons in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was planning to use against America. After the "Shock and Awe" invasion of Iraq, billions of dollars spent, tens of thousands of lives lost and the country's infrastructure demolished, not a shred of evidence of weapons of mass destruction has been found. The Bush Administration even tried to claim that drainage pipes used in a manufacturing plant were "missle launchers." Intelligence reports available at the time show that the Administration statements were deliberate lies. When Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson attempted to expose the lies of the Administration, the White House conspired to destroy his reputation and went so far as to out his wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA covert operative.

President Bush told us that he doubted we would ever find out who leaked the identity of Valerie Plame. He promised to fire anyone in his Administration who was involved. He later retreated to the position that he would fire anyone “convicted” of violating the law against disclosure of classified and highly confidential national security information. We now know, through sworn Grand Jury and federal court testimony, that Vice President Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and other high level White House officials were involved in a deliberate plot against Joseph Wilson that involved leaking the identity of his wife to the press. We even know who the members of the press were. Testimony regarding specific White House meetings also suggests that Bush knew of the operation at the time he made those public statements. No one has been fired, but Libby has been convicted of obstruction of justice and deliberately lying to the prosecutors and the Grand Jury.

President Bush is now in Latin America touting his Administration’s record of supporting the region through increased aid. He cites an increase in aid from $860 Million to $1.6 Billion in aid as proof of that support. The countries, leaders and people of the region are understandably skeptical of the claim. Since 9/11, the United States policy has largely ignored Latin American priorities other than a public war of words with Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. Without the aid of pervasive news media PR that Bush enjoys in the US, people of Latin America base their assessments upon what Bush has done rather than what he says. This reliance upon actions is wise. Consider the following news report about the Bush claim of nearly doubling aid to Latin America:

Analysts note that Bush is using a misleading base line, comparing this year's figure with 2001, a year when Latin American aid was essentially cut in half temporarily to make up for a large military aid package for Colombia and five neighbors. Moreover, Bush never mentions in his comments that he just proposed cutting the figure he cites in next year's budget.
"The total aid for 2000 was actually higher than the 2008 budget request because of the Plan Colombia supplemental, and in 2002 the amount of aid was about the same as it is now," said Adam Isacson of the Center for International Policy in Washington. "So unfortunately, this change in rhetoric isn't reflected in the budget." MSNBC 3/9/2007

The Bush White House continues to prevaricate, distort and mislead. It seems to be a basic “way of doing business.” In sociological and psychological terms, one who lies deliberately and repeatedly without good reason and without fear of being discovered or remorse for the misconduct is called a “pathological liar.” Perhaps it may sound disrespectful to place that label on the sitting President, but my Grandfather used to say to me: “If the shoe fits, put it on.”

Fooling the American People

It turns out that the American people are not quite as stupid, mindless, apathetic or inattentive as the White house hoped and imagined. The latest evidence is the guilty verdict in the “Scooter” Libby perjury and obstruction of justice case just concluded. One of the jurors characterized the feelings and belief of the jury that Libby was “the fall guy” for the Bush administration, but that he was still guilty of the charges of obstruction and perjury.

The jury and the American people have figured out that they were deliberately lied to and duped into support for a war in Iraq that was never based upon any valid, much less compelling, evidence of a threat to America. When the web of lies began to unravel and the prevaricators exposed, the effort to silence critics and retaliate against those who would expose the duplicity led to a violation of the law in outing a CIA covert cooperative, Valerie Plame. There is no longer basis for reasonable doubt about the involvement of the White House, up to and including Vice President Cheney, in the willful violation of that law.

The aftermath of the guilty verdict is no cause for joy, however. Another issue which the public has figured out is that, in the current political climate, the ones responsible for the more egregious crime will not be held accountable. Prosecutor Fitzgerald has stated that he will file no more charges relating to the Plame Leak Investigation. Former CIA covert operatives have pointed out that the message taken away from these events is that, if you are a covert operative in the field, it is unlikely that you will be exposed and risk loss of your life. However, if high level officials think it is politically expedient to put you at such risk, there will be no negative consequences for their doing so.

The Boston Globe editorial sections stated in today’s edition:

Fitzgerald said the American people would know more about the "cloud over the vice president" and "the cloud over the White House" if Libby had provided straight answers. Now Cheney can lift that cloud by giving the public some straight answers of his own.

The American people won’t be betting on this false hope. They know that pigs don’t fly. And that is when Cheney will come forward and tell the public the truth.

News Flash to White America: It Ain’t News!

Recent media reports highlight a “discovery” that Rev. Al Sharpton is a descendant of slaves once owned by ancestors of Strom Thurmond. Gaining near headline status, the media reports point out that the outspoken public critic of racist and racially discriminatory policies and practices, Rev. Sharpton, has distant ties to the staunch racial segregationist Senator Strom Thurmond. Thurmond has been the symbol of the “Resistance” to Civil Rights progress in the United States. The media obviously believes that the “news story” setting off the descendant of a slave against the descendant of a slave owner will sell in the current "infotainment" marketplace. It is a sad commentary on the current psyche of the American public that the media is probably right.

To any Black American, this is not newsworthy. It is nothing more than a fact of life. To anyone with a marginal understanding of American History, the fact that most Black Americans are the descendants of former slaves and that many White Americans are connected by blood or marriage to former slave owners is not new information. It is also true that many White American property owners draw their inheritance from land illegally seized as a result of broken treaties with Native Americans. These are simple cultural and historical facts. They are not cause for divisiveness unless we attempt to deny or ignore them as fact. That any supposedly "educated" American could pretend that slavery, "separate but equal," Wounded Knee and the "Trail of Tears" never existed should garner news attention. Those who doubt that these historical and cultural facts still maintain residue in the operation of our society today should be studied as an example of the failures of our educational system to teach history with integrity and accuracy.

The Jews maintain a cultural and historical memory of the Holocaust, not as a cudgel or chip on their soldier, but as a reminder that such an abomination should never be allowed to happen again. Yet mankind obviously has an imperfect memory, as evidenced in Rwanda, Bosnia and now in Darfur. The treatment of slaves and Native Americans in this country are abominations as well. Treating the reminders of such history as "news" only suggests that the public has forgotten, and is susceptible of perpetrating the vestiges of these historical atrocities.

So if you approach an American of color with the “news story” about Sharpton and Thurmond, do not be surprised if that person just looks at you oddly, shakes their head and walks away. It ain’t news to us!

Blogitos or-Short Takes

Ann Coulter is a strong believer that there is no such thing as “bad publicity” as long as they spell your name right. During the reign of the GOP government, this self appointed Right Wing successor to Rush Limbaugh held brief media attention with provocative Right Wing commentary. She was a novelty, an anorexic looking, intellectually anemic pseudo academic firebrand Barbie. With her 15 minutes of fame burned out, she apparently is desperate to regain the limelight. So she injects herself into the presidential debate by calling John Edwards a homosexual. Ann, please go away quietly and try to join a bridge club with Phyllis Schlaffly and Barbara Bush.

Democrats are acting like the simpleminded watchdog that chases after a piece of steak thrown by a burglar, while the thief raids the household coffers. The real issue with the proposed military budget is not that it contains funds for increasing troops in Iraq. The problem is that a host of military experts have expressed their opinion that the entire basis for the huge budget, an increase of combat troops in the military by more than 92,000, is a bad idea. In other words, the budget is bloated and needs to be trimmed. The trimming has political implications as well. As one military expert stated:
"The global war on terrorism and Iraq are being used as lame rationales" for enlarging the military, said retired Lieutenant Colonel Frank Hoffman , a researcher at the Marine Corps Center for Emerging Threats and Opportunities in Quantico, Va. "Unless you think we will have more than six brigades in Iraq in 2012, I don't see how this is relevant."
In simple terms, the ENTIRE military budget needs scrutiny to determine whether the priorities and assumptions upon which it is based are relevant, logical and prudent. As another expert observed, the proposed larger combat force will not be ready for any useful deployment for 3-5 years from now at the earliest. Unless we are committing the US to a policy of future military occupation in various parts of the globe, the budget does not make sense. However, most Democrats in Congress are lining up behind the proposed Bush military budget with their tongues wagging.

Shifting Winds: “Support Our Troops”

Changes in the wind sometimes feel subtle, but where evident, they are unmistakable. The shift in Congress to Democratic control seems to have emboldened the media to resuscitate its roles as watchdog, investigator and public information source respecting government sponsored programs. The latest evidence of such scrutiny seems to be the firing of Maj. Gen. George W. Weightman, who headed military medical facilities for the North Atlantic Command, including Walter reed army hospital. News media reports of the shabby treatment of wounded outpatient soldiers returning from Iraq led to unusually prompt action by the Secretary of Defense. Mold on the inside walls of outpatient housing at Walter Reed, the facility deemed the crown jewel of military medicine, and the misclassification of patients as outpatient resulting in the denial of care that should have been inpatient drew unwelcome attention to the status of treatment that soldiers returning from Iraq receive at military facilities.

Critics of the Bush Administration, including veteran groups, have protested loudly for several years that the returning soldiers were receiving substandard medical attention and treatment, if they were able to get treatment at all. Yet under a GOP controlled Congress, the matter was typically brushed aside. The media buried the stories and treated the ones that were printed on their back pages as anecdotal events, rather than as a sign of systemic problems. Secretary of Defense Gates has ordered a review not only of conditions at Walter Reed, but of military medical facilities in other parts of the country.

Lest this development be mistakenly viewed as a “change of heart” by the Bush Administration, it is useful to examine the context in a bit more detail. The Democratic Congress has threatened to adopt measures that would either cut off military funding for escalation of the Iraq military mission, or impose conditions under which additional US troops can be deployed. While even most Republican legislators acknowledge that the American voters declared last fall that a change of direction in Iraq policy was needed, President Bush seems to have turned a nearly deaf ear to that mandate. He has embarked upon expansion of troop deployments rather than de-escalation of US involvement. The proposals to cut funding for the additional deployments are an attempt to force legislators to decide whether they are aligning themselves with the president or with the electorate.

The proposal by Jack Murtha D-PA, a veteran and longtime stalwart of military program support, to place conditions on the military funding is a subtle but more powerful threat, politically and pragmatically. The conditions that he would impose involve the necessary level of training and equipment that must be provided to troops that the president wishes to deploy. Additional conditions relate to the amount of time soldiers can be deployed in one tour of duty and the resting time required before the soldier can be sent back to Iraq in subsequent deployments. Unquestionably, these measures are intended to protect and support the men and women deployed for the Iraq mission; an adventure that Murtha thinks is being grossly mismanaged.

The static rejoinder from the White House and its supporters is that criticism and resistance to the troop escalation "emboldens the enemy” and signals a lack of desire to “support the troops.” While the logic of these arguments is empty and fallacious, many Americans are attracted to such simplistic sound bites. [Are not the insurgents more emboldened by the deployment of poorly trained and ill-equipped troops who make realitvely easier targets? ] The exposure of the manner in which the troops are actually being treated by the Bush Administration, the lack of proper equipment, back to back and extended deployments, denial of proper medical care and the homelessness and job displacement suffered by the soldiers who have been deployed in Iraq is a national embarrassment. The men and women asked to sacrifice their lives in service to their country deserve better support and treatment when they return home.

Politically, the exposure of these support deficiencies undercuts the attacks by the White House on its critics, and displays the hypocrisy of the “support our troops” argument. The soldiers who already have been deployed in Iraq, based upon authority that Congress has already provided, are without proper training and equipment. They have been forced to endure extended deployments because of a lack of ready troops to relieve them. When they are injured, whether physically or psychologically, they return home to substandard or denied health care. Thus, Murtha’s proposal has a very simple logical appeal. Regardless of where you stand on the level of troop deployment in Iraq, the men and women who are ordered to serve in Iraq should not be mistreated and abused in the manner that the Administration has done since the initial Iraq invasion byUS troops without adequate armor and equipment.

The practical result, however, is that Murtha’s bill would halt the escalation of US troop involvement by the Administration because the military forces are already overextended. The overuse of National Guard units and reserve units has arguably led to many of the deaths and injuries of US troops because the personnel sent lack proper training for the assignment. Given the current unwillingness or inability of the Bush administration to support the troops already deployed in a proper and reasonable manner, it seems perfectly logical for Congress to say that it will not fund a plan to send even more ill equipped and poorly trained troops into the theater of battle and into harm’s way.

All this seems quite logical and rather obvious when the simple facts are examined. And here is where the shift in the wind has come. These facts have been manifest for some time. Yet the mainstream media, whether from laziness, complicity or intimidation, has failed to adequately investigate and publish the objective facts in a manner that informs and educates the public of the problems that exist with the Bush Administration handling of the Iraq conflict. Major media attention was focused upon White House "spin" and what Congress would investigate. Since the GOP Congress would investigate none of the Administration’s actions, most of the public was uninformed of the sham that was being perpetrated. So the argument has unmistakably shifted. Why should Congress fund the deployment of MORE troops, when the Administration has not shown a willingness or ability to support the troops already deployed? Who is really culpable for the charge of failing to “support the troops?”

Cracks in The Foundation

The job of carrying forward thoughtful analysis of the legislative and policy changes wrought by the G.W. Bush Administration and his accomplice, the GOP controlled Congress is not a glamorous one. Liken it to the job of a housing inspector roving about in dank basements in hostile weather to examine the foundations of a building. Based upon his findings, which may seem far from obvious to the average eye, he must persuade the present or prospective owners that the serious cracks in the foundation are likely to cause the building to crumble. Moreover, he may have to sound the alarm that repairs are immediately necessary to preserve the structure.

Such admonitions are brushed aside by Bush Administration supporters and GOP stalwarts as “political” sniping. While some criticisms obviously do have political motivations, others are simply the objective assessments of the "effects" resulting from "causes" put in motion by Congress and the President. In some cases, the public has been so distracted by the “spin” and “sound bite” media approach to policy used in politics today, that they fail to recognize the real world consequences that policies adopted have. The public is distracted by cynically advanced graphic images of potential “mushroom clouds” rising from nuclear weapons that Iran does not yet have, and Iraq was never close to obtaining. This demagoguery and fear mongering distracts attention from real world erosion of civil rights that are at the core of our democracy.

The Military Commissions Act pushed through last fall by the GOP Congress contained a provision that allowed detainees like those in Guantanamo Bay to have their cases considered by military commissions. That same Act stripped the US courts of their ability to hear cases by the detainees regarding the legality of their detention. A divided panel of the Federal Court in DC just issued a ruling, based upon a 2-1 majority opinion by two GOP appointed judges, that the MCA provision is valid and applies. Unless the ruling is overturned by the Supreme Court [now containing Bush appointees Alito and Chief Justice Roberts], the Bush Administration can do whatever it likes to non-citizens as long as they are off shore. And the top lawyer for the administration has written an opinion that the Geneva Conventions do not even apply.

Keep in mind that the law now provides that the only recourse a detainee who has been labeled an “enemy combatant” [correctly or not] now has is to a military panel answerable only to the Executive Branch authority that made the decision to imprison the detainee in the first place. The primary motivations of such a panel would be to affirm the decision on detention, and to avoid embarrassment to the chain of command and the Administration. The rights of the detainee would fall far below these top priorities. There is no recourse to an independent judiciary whose duty is to uphold the US Constitution, our laws and our system of justice.

This serious crack in the foundation of our system of justice has not gone without notice:

A spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was accelerating efforts to pass a revision to the law that would restore detainees' legal rights, noting that some 12 million lawful permanent residents currently in the U.S. could also be stripped of rights. The new provision, introduced by Leahy and then-Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., narrowly failed last year on a 48-51 vote.
"The Military Commissions Act is a dangerous and misguided law that undercuts our freedoms and assaults our Constitution by removing vital checks and balances designed to prevent government overreaching and lawlessness," Leahy, D-Vt., said in a statement. [Associated Press – Feb 20, 2007]

The damage that has been done to our democracy and to our system of justice, the very foundation upon which this country was built, lies not only in the blatant public gestures like pre-emptive war and assaults on the environment. There is very serious damage done by insidious measures that undercut and erode the principles we have relied upon for centuries. The right of Habeas Corpus, after all, was a primary spark for the rebellion against King George IV of England. We have a social compact among Americans that imprisonment can only be for good cause, and that the government must be able to show probable cause if it wishes to continue to hold someone for a suspected crime.

According to the DC Circuit Court, that is no longer a bedrock principle of our country. A permanent resident can be erroneously labeled as an enemy combatant, based upon mistaken or deliberately falsified information, and be held in prison in Guantanamo Bay, or one of the extraordinary rendition secret prisons under US control around the world, for an indefinite period. There is not even a right to challenge the detention on the basis of mistaken identity in a court of law. It may be America, but it certainly does not sound like the “Land of Liberty” of which we teach our children to sing. And unless we take steps promptly to repair the damage, the entire structure is at risk of collapsing.

Burn, Baby Burn!

Caveat Emptor! Beware! Hot Topic!
--- Anyone who is allergic or has a strong aversion to reality and factual evidence should stop now and read no further. Bush Administration officials and apologists for the Administration Environmental and Energy policies should proceed with extreme caution.

The scientific evidence continues to mount in support of the increasing momentum of the earth toward the ecological tipping point resulting from global warming. The recent consensus report of the entire scientific community has taken us past the point of argument whether global warming is in progress and that the activities of humans on the planet is significantly contributing to the deterioration of environmental balance. The topics of serious discussion [apologies to the nattering nabobs of the George W. Bush Anti-science Society] has turned to questions of how quickly the deterioration is progressing and what steps can be taken to slow down or reverse the trend. Recent scientific reports of Earth temperature measurements do not provide much comfort or cause for celebration.

According to the U.S. National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., the world’s land areas were 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than a normal January. That increase broke the old record set in 2002 by 0.81 degrees, which meteorologists said is a lot. Land temperature records often are broken by only hundredths of a degree at a time. The scientists issuing the report went beyond their normal double-checking and took the unusual step of running computer climate models “just to make sure that what we’re seeing was real,” Data Center Official Easterling said.

The temperature of the world’s land and water combined — the most effective measurement of global temperature for comparative purposes — was 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than normal. This increase broke the old record by more than one-quarter of a degree. Ocean temperatures alone didn’t set a record.

These developments are of concern because they represent dramatic departures from the expected rate of change based upon older and traditional models. Some scientists have expressed concern that the global warming phenomenon is more like a stone rolling down a hill than a gradual linear process. As change occurs, these changes stimulate other changes exponentially or at least logarithmically as the process picks up momentum. One such discovery was the hydraulic collapse of ice shelves in Antarctica. Rather than the expected erosion of the ice from the edges of the sea, water melting on the surface of the shelf drills down to bedrock and creates a layer of water that allows large chunks of the ice shelf to slide off into the sea. This process results in a much quicker loss of ice mass than was previously predicted.

The cumulative effect of many such “anomalies” could be creating the global increase in temperature that has yielded four of the highest annual temperatures ever recorded [measurements began in the 1880’s] in the past five years. One does not need to be an environmental scientist [with rocket design competence] to recognize that this information points to a dangerous trend. While it may not be clear what all the alternatives and corrective measures are, it seems quite obvious that sitting around denying that the problem exists is not an intelligent strategy. More than likely, as with most environmental and energy related issues, the response will have to be comprised of a combination of measures adopted on a global basis. After all, that is how the problem was created.

American leadership seems intent upon allowing the situation to continue to degrade until the planet becomes a living hell. While we may politely invite them to go to that address, we can act more rationally. No individual effort will resolve the coming crisis, it will take a true grass roots effort. We can start to combine our efforts and modify our behaviors to keep from making the situation worse.

The Further Costs of Fear

The omnipresence of fear in the United States continues to take a toll on the psyche of the American people. Each day we are reminded of 9/11 and that we are at some indefinable, unquantifiable and inexplicable level of risk that another terrorist attack will occur. This message has been so effectively broadcast and pounded into the consciousness of Americans that even the corner drug store owner in Ottumwa, Iowa lives in fear of an imminent attack unless the Department of Homeland Security is vigilant. At every airport in the nation, we are reminded that the DHS [ an acronym which some of us recall used to represent the Department of Health and Human Services…how times have changed!] has declared a state of orange alert.” There are apparently four levels, with the risk of attack increasing in each step: green, yellow, orange and red. One might question the precision, if not the competence of a system that has had a constant orange alert in every city for more than two years. After all, it would be hard to imagine that New York City and Fargo, ND, have the same risk of attack. But in these times, it may even be against the law to disparage the national security apparatus. So by way of disclaimer, I am SURE that the DHS is doing the best job they know how to do to protect the American people.

But the system of fear has other costs. The head of the Central Bank in Argentina stated in a speech this week that more than 200 corresponding Latin American banks have switched their cash transactions to Europe because of the extensive regulations imposed by the Bush Administration to trace possible transactions relating to persons or organizations which could lead to potential support of terrorists. These restrictions and trade barriers have made the increased cost of doing business with US banks unattractive. This is another example of how the climate of paranoia or fear (depending upon whether one has blind faith in the Administration’s claims of terrorist threats in the US), has unseen costs to the American economy and makes the US less competitive in the global marketplace. The United States is becoming an increasingly less attractive destination for tourists. This may be a result of a combination of the climate of fear and the generalized decline of respect and admiration of this country around the world. In any event, it represents an economic loss. Common sense would dictate that an analysis of the need and effectiveness of all these security measures and barriers to economic activity.

In the current climate, we are fed generalized exhortations daily to beware of “terrorists.” We are reminded that we are at "war with terror." We are told that any laxity in our vigilance or failure to fight the terrorists would be devastating. We are never advised of any specific threats or of any actual terrorist plots or cells in the US that the DHS has effectively disrupted. We are not given any specific information that would support the notion that the entire nation needs to be constantly on Orange Alert. The excuse, of course, is that revealing such information would endanger national security. The logic of how the release of information about an actual success story of intervention that occurred six months ago or more would undermine national security is obscure, at best. In fact, knowledge that all these constraints are actually accomplishing something concrete would conceivably build confidence and tolerance in the public.

However, we are given nothing concrete to hold onto. Nothing, that is, except fear. And we are repeatedly told that our greatest fear should be not being afraid.

Read 'Em And Weep

In the game of Poker, it is not necessarily the hand that has the greatest value that controls the table a player with a worthless position may control the bidding through arrogance and bluffing. Disaster can result when that player’s bluff is called and his hand is shown to lack merit. While timid Senators and Representatives in Congress speculate and haggle over rather insignificant semantics in wording a symbolic resolution of disapproval of the Bush Admiinistration troop buildup in Iraq, the White House is busy planning another catastrophe, a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

The leadership of the Bush Administration taken the country into the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq, in which the country is now deeply mired. The stakes have been raised to one half Trillion dollars, more than 3000 US soldier deaths and tens of thousands of Iraqis killed and maimed. Not satisfied with one major fiasco, the President and Vice President are now determined to risk what would likely be a regional, if not global, war with nuclear ramifications. Common sense and a prudent sense of survival would require of our Congress to take forceful and deliberate action to curb the mad excesses of the Bush Administration. The squabbling over the Iraq resolution wording is, in context, silly and trivial.

A responsible Congress would acknowledge the documented fact that Congress was misled in authorizing the invasion, and would also make a formal finding that the purported justifications for the authorization to use military force do not exist. Thus, Congress could rescind the authority and require Bush to seek new authority to continue the occupation, based upon the situation that actually exists. At the same time, a responsible Congress should attach riders to the current budget that prohibit use of funds for any pre-emptive military strike without express approval from Congress. But we do not seem to have a responsible Congress. And in the current game of “Texas Hold-em” all the public can do is “read them and weep.” Consider carefully the following article published today in the United Kingdom newspaper:

US Able To Strike in The Spring
By Ewen MacAskill
The Guardian UK
Saturday 10 February 2007

Despite denials, Pentagon plans for possible attack on nuclear sites are well advanced.

US preparations for an air strike against Iran are at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration, according to informed sources in Washington.

The present military build-up in the Gulf would allow the US to mount an attack by the spring. But the sources said that if there was an attack, it was more likely next year, just before Mr. Bush leaves office.

Neo-conservatives, particularly at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, are urging Mr. Bush to open a new front against Iran. So too is the vice-president, Dick Cheney. The state department and the Pentagon are opposed, as are Democratic congressmen and the overwhelming majority of Republicans. The sources said Mr. Bush had not yet made a decision…….

Robert Gates, the new US defence secretary, said yesterday: "I don't know how many times the president, secretary [of state Condoleezza] Rice and I have had to repeat that we have no intention of attacking Iran."

But Vincent Cannistraro, a Washington-based intelligence analyst, shared the sources' assessment that Pentagon planning was well under way. "Planning is going on, in spite of public disavowals by Gates. Targets have been selected. For a bombing campaign against nuclear sites, it is quite advanced. The military assets to carry this out are being put in place."

He added: "We are planning for war. It is incredibly dangerous."

Let Freedom Cringe

Aboard a Concord Trailways bus this morning from Manchester, New Hampshire, to Boston, we were delayed while two men boarded and announced that they were immigration agents checking to determine whether passengers had the appropriate papers for travel. These men were not dressed in any official uniform and wore no badges or insignia confirming any actual authority. [I later learned from the Bus driver that one of the men had discretely shown him a badge out of the view of the passengers.] As the two men walked down the aisle, they spoke to a couple of passengers who identified themselves as non-citizens who are legal residents. In both instances, the passengers did not have their actual green cards on their person. These passengers were chided that it is against the law to travel in the US as a permanent legal resident without carrying your official documents on your person. I do not doubt, in these days and times, that they accurately stated the law. I confess that I was not aware of that particular constraint, even with 30 years of legal training and experience.

In over 50 years of traveling about the country, I have never before been aboard a public transportation vehicle that was detained by immigration agents for inspection of papers. These agents did not request the papers of every passenger. Each passenger was required to furnish a picture ID in order to purchase a ticket. It was clear, however, that the agents were not referring to any list or manifest as they conducted their inspection. The agents then departed and the bus departed from the station.

The experience left me with two very different impressions. The first and most immediate impression was a sense of how a non-US citizen, who is legally entitled to be in the US and to travel, must feel these days when traveling in this country. I recognized that the experience might be discomfiting to a visitor on a travel visa, despite the fact that such shows of authority have never seemed necessary prior to the World Trade Center attack. But it had not previously occurred to me that individuals who have a permanent resident status or are naturalized are now subject to the same interdiction. The feeling was one of palpable tension, and all conversation on the bus stopped and remained completely quiet until the men left the bus. There was some discussion afterward about why they inspected the bus and why they did not check the identification of every passenger.

The second impression was that I have traveled about the world, including recent trips to Venezuela, Mexico and Fiji, and not been stopped and asked for my identification papers. In travels to these countries, there was never a scarcity of police or official presence in public places. And I have in fact approached such police for assistance in locating a place or finding something I needed. Not one of these encounters felt intimidating or made me feel unwelcome. Of course, a passport has been requested when checking into a hotel and to support a credit card purchase.

I have never been stopped and questioned about my freedom to travel, even in these countries that have been portrayed by the US government and the US mainstream media as somewhat dangerous or subversive. Fiji and México have had tumultuous changes of government, and the enmity between George W. Bush and Hugo Chavez is now legendary. Yet in none of these countries was I ever made to feel that the governments did not want me to be in their country, or that they were worried about my presence there.

In fact, my only other truly negative experience also occurred in the United States. Returning on a flight from Jamaica with my ex wife [who is Caucasian] and children, I was detained by US Customs agents who apparently thought that I [who am Black and Native American] might be trying to get into the country illegally. I had shown the agents a valid passport, even though only a driver’s license or birth certificate had typically been required at the time. I believe that experience was motivated by rather blatant racial discrimination more than the “national security” concerns that currently seem to underlie these shows of authority today. [We could also discuss the potential ethnic and religious discrimination behind these "national security"policies in another piece.]

The topping on this delicacy of a travel experience was a conversation overheard while passing through the security checkpoint at the airport. The agents were talking among themselves in a normal and matter of fact tone, as employees typically do to pass the time when there is no rush of passengers. One agent, obviously new to the job, stated to another that he was glad that the security job with TSA had come through. He said that he had tried and could not get a job at McDonalds. While I do not frequent McDonalds, primarily because of health and nutritional concerns, I would not disparage the employees who work in those fast food establishments. However, it was more than a little disconcerting to hear that the rigorous standards applied to the officials in whose hands the protection of our "national security" has been placed is below the hiring standards for a fast food restaurant that requires no training or experience.

This is still supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave, but when I think of how our freedom is being trampled and treated with such carelessness and disregard, I cannot help but cringe a little.

Attack of the "Lite Brites"

The opportunity to comment upon the recent panic and over reaction of the Boston officials to the guerilla advertising campaign stunt is too much to pass up. Small devices that resembled enlarged "Lite Brite" [a children's toy] pictures of a character on a Cartoon Network program caused hours of dislocation and near panic when Boston officials declared a terrorist alert, apparently believing that the devices were potential bombs. Similar devices have up in public places for up to three weeks in ten different cities, but Boston was the only one where serious reaction was registered. In other cities, the marketing devices were viewed as perhaps juvenile, but not dangerous. Closer examination of the devices readily revealed that they were not bombs and posed no threat to public safety. The danger that did result was from the official reaction.

Therein lies the issue that should concern us. It would be too easy to ridicule the Boston police for their "chicken little" response to an innocuous piece of marketing junk. The real concern is the level of public paranoia that has been cultivated and fostered over a supposed threat of a terrorist attack. We are in the midst of a culture of fearmongering in which we are constantly reminded to fear and distrust everyone in public and to worry about a terrorist attack wherever we go. In such an atmosphere, it is not surprising that the Boston police would overreact.

Most of us recall the argument between the Sheriff and the town Mayor in the movie "Jaws" over whether to alert the public to the threat of a shark attack. The same debate was portrayed more recently in the movie "Deep Impact." where a comet threatened the earth. The issue is the responsibility of officials to investigate and try to eliminate a potential threat to public safety before sounding a public alert that may cause widespread panic and injury. It seems, however, that the public has been in a state of "orange" or "red" alert for the past four years. It is long past time to examine whether this is a healthy situation that should continue.

The public was not whipped into the current level of hysteria in a "post Oklahoma City" world. But now the Department of Homeland Security justifies curtailing civil liberties and the constant fearmongering about a terrorist attack with the excuse that we now live in a "post 9/11" world. There have been terrorist attacks around the world, both before and after the attack on the World Trade Center. They have ranged from politically motivated bombings to schoolyard massacres. And yet all this investment in "Homeland Security" has not made us demonstrably any safer than before 9/11. Indeed, experts in the field have opined that the Iraq occupation and "war on terror" have actually made us less safe. By effectively declaring open war on an ethnic group [Arabs] and a religion [Islam], the Bush Administration has baited extremists. The destabilization of Iraq has increased the ability of terrorist groups to hide out in Iraq.

The sad reality is that the fearmongering is a political tool being cynically used to maintain leverage on the issue of "national security." There is, in fact, no appreciably greater threat to the United States now than before the 9/11 attack. By positing an amorphous "enemy" of "terrorism," which is a tactic and not a definable target, the Bush Administration has created an omnipresent "Boogieman" to put us all in fear. Worst of all, this deception has been supported by outright lies. We are told that to fight this "terror" that is embodied by Al Qaeda, we must invade and occupy Iraq. The facts we now know, are that Iraq had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack and that Al Qaeda was not functioning in or sponsored by Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

America needs to wake up. There are threats of crime and violence, and they will continue to exist. Improved technology and police agency cooperation using traditionally developed and constitutionally sanctioned methods have and will continue to help maintain public security without destroying the foundations of a free and democratic society. Through these means we can respond rationally and effectively to real threats. But if we continue in dazed hysteria and induced fear regarding imagined threats, the result will not only be the trampling of our civil rights, but the literal and physical trampling of citizens in a public panic attack. The Boston experience should be a wake up call.

“Bold” Rhetoric about Iraq

We have been hearing that a proposed Senate resolution opposing the White House plan to deploy thousands more troops in Iraq will “embolden the enemy.” To most sentient beings, this rhetoric is empty sloganeering and base demagoguery. To those willing to base opinion on facts, the argument is irrational and silly. After all, General John Abizaid testified last November before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he had surveyed all Generals and all the field commanders agreed that the proposed “surge” of additional troops in Baghdad was not the answer to the current sectarian violence. So if there was any message that would give heart to the “enemy,” it would be the decision of the President to go forward with a strategy that his field commanders believe is futile. In all fairness and logic, would you give greater respect and deference to the strategic battlefield judgment of career soldiers with decades of experience and direct responsibility and experience in theater, or to a president who has never experienced real active duty military service or directed a successful military campaign?

And what does “embolden the enemy” really mean? The “enemy” needs to be defined in this situation. Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki stated publicly in December his opposition to a US troop build up. Is the Iraqi Prime Minister, upon whom Bush rests major responsibility for success of this plan, the “enemy?” Shiite and Sunni leaders in the Iraqi government want the US troops out of Iraq. The Kurds in the north of Iraq are less vocal, but they too have indicated that the solution to the current crisis must be an internal one, rather than something imposed by a foreign power. Are the Iraqi people from all religious and ethnic sectors the “enemy” Bush does not want to embolden? Reasonably reliable reports from Iraq suggest primary Al Qaeda activity in the Anbar Province, rather than Baghdad where the troop “surge” is to be focused. So Al Qaeda would not be emboldened by opposition to the “surge” plan. In fact, Al Qaeda would probably want the US to divert and deplete resources in areas where they are not active. Al Qaeda would be more emboldened by going forward with the Bush plan, and not by opposition to it. Bush seems to have no clear idea who the “enemy” is, much less why or how that “enemy” would be emboldened by opposition to the troop increase.

White House rhetoric branding anyone dissenting from the Bush Administration strategy as unpatriotic and disloyal to American troopsis reprehensible and undemocratic. Moreover, the claim of "emboldening the enemy" makes no practical sense. Our soldiers in Iraq already have gotten the message that the “Decider” directing this mission is largely incompetent, and that there is no realistic hope for a military solution. Reports from the field [see reports in Army Times and other military periodicals] suggest that troop morale is low because of a belief that those directing the US mission [i.e the Bush Administration] have lost touch with reality and have no clear idea of what US troops are supposed to accomplish. In addition, many who are in Iraq, and those who have served there, believe that the “Iraqi Freedom Mission” has been so poorly managed that it is now beyond retrieval. Refusals of career military personnel to deploy in a war that they believe is illegal, immoral and futile, and the public court martial prosecution of these individuals demonstrate the deep level of disconnect between the white House and the troops. Iraq war veterans state publicly that they believe sending more troops into the middle of an Iraqi civil war is more demoralizing to troops than any debate in the Congress.

To advance a modest suggestion, the problem is not with a symbolic Senate resolution opposing the troop surge. That measure will have virtually no impact upon a President who is more concerned about doing “his” thing than about doing the “right” thing. Appeals to logic and common sense have been futile. A "resolution" warning him not to go forward will only strengthen his resolve to do as he pleases, like an oppositional child. The problem lies in the continued failure of Congress to act responsibly within their constitutional powers and duty to curtail the authority and discretion of a President who is steering this country on a disastrous course.

When the GOP controlled Congress and the White House, it was deplorable but understandable why Congress did nothing to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration. But the public declared very loudly in the November mid-term election that it wanted to change that dynamic. So far, the new Congress seems so defensive and caught up in diversionary White House rhetoric that they have ignored the reasons why they were elected. The additional lives unnecessarily lost and the money that will be wasted by the Bush Administration, until Congress acts to change the course this country is on, will be the real tragedy. What the country needs, and what will truly dishearten the genuine enemies of this nation is true leadership that will stand up to Bush and assert a rational strategy that can unify rather than divide the people of this country and stop squandering the resources, respect and good will of America. Sadly, quibbling over the semantics of a symbolic resolution does not constitute such leadership.

The Way Forward? – Take a Step Backward

“A long-awaited National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, presented to President Bush by the intelligence community yesterday, outlines an increasingly perilous situation in which the United States has little control and there is a strong possibility of further deterioration, according to sources familiar with the document.” By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus;

The official word is in; the situation in Iraq is in dire straits. At the risk of sounding overly optimistic, we may hope the report will put an end to the absurd commentary by Vice President Cheney painting a rosy picture of the conflict and the bright prospects of “winning.” There will be no effective progress toward a solution to the tragic situation in Iraq until the Administration and Congress are able to step back and obtain a realistic perspective of the actual situation in Iraq. This is made substantially more difficult by circumstances that foster disinformation. The previous attacks, including assaults by US forces, upon reporters operating as embedded and independentjournalists has drastically choked the flow of information regarding the situation on the ground. Moreover, the Bush Administration treatment and censorship of embedded journalists has discouraged such reporting efforts and undermined public confidence in such reports as well. Indeed, the more reliable reports about the Iraqi situation now come from foreign journalists and reporters for Arab and independent news organizations operating in the Mid East Region.

Another important piece of information in the National Intelligence Estimate is the identification of the primary risks and obstacles to improvement of the situation. "Corruption"is one central factor. ” This factor has many dimensions, but the impact is largely the same. It undermines the confidence that can rationally be placed in any proposal put forward by an Administration that has both fostered corruption and failed to take any reasonable steps to stop corrupt activity. In the minds of the public, this raises the notion that the Administration is corrupt and cannot be trusted.

The numerous reports of corruption and mismanagement respecting funds allotted for support and reconstruction in Iraq support a belief that the Bush Administration is either totally incompetent in its mission to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure, or that it is complicit in the corrupt diversion of billions of dollars. Why then, should Congress approve billions more for such purpose without greater assurance regarding how the money will be spent?

The recent reports about complete failure of training initiatives to function as local police forces also indicate that the Bush Administration is inept in its mission to create stabilizing conditions in Iraq. Reports of large training facilities built but never used, along with Olympic swimming pools and other luxuries not clearly tied to the purpose of the mission. The participants in the training have taken the pay, weapons and training and then deserted in very large numbers. Many of these deserters are believed to operate in local sectarian militia forces.

The wisdom of placing confidence, as the Bush Administration does, on the Iraqi government and Maliki is certainly questionable. By all appearances, the Maliki government has been walking a tightrope that maintaining support of the Shiite factions that oppose US involvement and concessions to the Sunnis on one side, and maintaining personal protection and substantial personal wealth as a result of maintaining a role as Bush’s agent in Iraq. Maliki makes some critical statements toward Washington to create an appearance of independence for his sectarian Shiite supporters and contradictory statements about his intent to crack down on local Shiite militias to end the sectarian violence. Would the Iraqi government act in the manner that it does if the Green Zone protection or US backed creature comforts were not provided?

The "way forward" needs the perspective of stepping back to carefully and realistically assessing the current situation. That perspective would compel a different and more practical approach to the problem. More than likely, a regionally negotiated political solution, rather than a militarily imposed solution would become the primary objective. Allocated funds would be directed to efforts that actually yield results and those awarded contracts would be responsible for completion of contract work and subject to reasonable accounting procedures.

It is true that, despite being led into Iraq by deception and unlawful conduct by the White House, the US is now present in the middle of a disastrous conflict. The practical problem is how to achieve the best possible outcome while extricating US troops from the country. That process cannot happen as long as Bush maintains an unrealistic “full speed ahead” and “damn the torpedoes” approach to the situation in Iraq.

Spooky Things - Losses in The War on Terror

The current controversy in Europe, specifically in Italy and now in Germany, regarding the proper response to alleged crimes of kidnapping, unlawful detention and torture of citizens of those countries provides and interesting look into the state of democratic values. The actions of these governments give us a glimpse of how the rest of the world, that previously viewed the United States, as a bastion of freedom, justice and the rule of law, are now all but compelled to view America

In the Italian case, Abu Omar was snatched off the streets by CIA operatives with the support and complicity of Italian intelligence operatives. He was removed from Italy in an operation now commonly referred to as “extraordinary rendition.” The Italian Court system is seeking extradition of US operatives involved in the incident. It would appear that abduction of an Italian citizen by foreign agents, without resort to the Italian judicial or legal system, is beyond the standards that the Italian government and society accept as within the boundaries of a democratic society that respects the rule of law.

Similarly, The German government is now considering formal charges against 13 CIA operatives involved in the abduction of Khaled Masri, a German citizen of Lebanese descent. Masri was kidnapped, jailed and allegedly tortured during five months of captivity. He too was released without charges or any confirmed justification for his abduction and detention. There have been legislative inquiries into the level of knowledge and complicity by high level German officials in the rendition. Nevertheless, the abduction of a German citizen by US operatives without formal resort to the German judicial or legal system is viewed an illegal and potentially criminal.

The dilemma facing these governments, and by extension their societies, is whether the power and influence of the US government can override the basic civil rights and principles of justice that these countries have guaranteed to their citizens. The clandestine complicity of German or Italian operatives could be a complicating factor. However, a distinction can be clearly seen between the German government’s treatment of its own citizens, and the treatment of German citizens the German or Italian government should permit other governments to exercise. The White House is undoubtedly surprised that these governments would have the temerity to challenge the actions of CIA who were allegedly pursuing the “War on Terror.” The Bush Administration had openly declared that it did not consider its agents subject to international law or treaty restrictions.

The governments of Italy and Germany have squarely addressed the basic question whether the “end justifies the means” in combating a perceived threat of terrorist violence. Their legal systems are asking whether a society is willing to sacrifice its fundamental principles for expediency in addressing a problem that may threaten great harm to its people. Is it acceptable to destroy a society’s system of justice in order to protect that society? In these cases, the question does not arise in the face of an actual or imminent threat of assault, attack or invasion by an identifiable enemy, but rather in the face of an unidentified and speculative “foe” purposely created by hype and public hysteria. To be sure, terrorist attacks on the public have occurred with devastating results. But there is no real evidence that traditional police and investigatory methods that fall within accepted principles of existing legal systems are incapable of addressing such threats. Most of the successful raids and interdictions of alleged terrorist plots have been conducted by traditional police agencies, who are now working with greater coordination in light of a heightened sense of threat. But these actions have been conducted within the confines of established legal standards. So the question is whether these governments should allow their citizens to be abducted without warning or any semblance of due process in order to support the Bush “War on Terror.” Or is it possible that the cure is worse than the disease?

To answer these questions, the Italian and German governments can no longer look to the United States for guidance in resolving these fundamental questions. As the perpetrator of these actions, America no longer has credibility or standing to advise others on the principled application of the rule of law and the assurance of constitutional protections to citizens. And our inability to provide that guidance that has traditionally been a hallmark of our system of government should cause each American to reflect.

In reality, the current crisis is about much more than Iraq. It can fairly be argued that the mission in Iraq was lost when the Bush Administration launched the invasion without a plan for what should be done once the intended regime change was effected. However, the United States has lost far more in the process of pursuing Bush’s Mission” in Iraq and his “War on Terror.” Our moral compass and our role as an exemplar of justice and the rule of law in a democratic society have been sacrificed.