Massive Retaliation or Massive Desperation? – By Hilary Clinton

While not a fan of “sound bite” debate, the phrase used by Presidential hopeful Barack Obama to characterize Hilary Clinton, his opponent for the nomination, resonates with me. Obama referred to Clinton as the “say anything” candidate. He was responding to or reflecting upon the increasingly shrill and slimy rhetoric used by the Clinton campaign to gain or try to maintain a lead in the polls going into the Pennsylvania primary contest.

Most recently, Clinton went on national TV to pander to talking head Keith Olberman and elaborate on her remarks during the last debate. Responding to a hypothetical question during the debate, Clinton said that she would use "massive retaliation" in the event of an Iranian attack on Israel. Now keep in mind that there is no impending attack or even a credible threat of an attack by Iran on Israel at the moment. So this discussion is totally hypothetical and abject political campaign sophistry. A sensible leader would have left standing the carefully considered reply made in the debate to a dubious question. But Clinton’s desperation to appeal to the fears and anxieties of the Pennsylvania electorate led her to seek out a media opportunity to elaborate on her statement. To Olberman she stated that, if Israel were subjected to a nuclear attack by Iran, the US would respond with the nuclear option. Aside from the vestiges of “Dr. No” in the tenor of the Clinton Campaign rhetoric, there are at least a couple of glaring problems with her latest tactic.

First, what the country really needs right now is a leader who will not quickly rise to irresponsible and hawkish rhetoric. Clinton, even if the initiative were coming from the press instead of her press agent, could have FIRST emphasized that all possible diplomatic measures would be undertaken to prevent a situation in which such an attack by Iran would even be considered a realistic option. Instead, Clinton opted for the guns a’ blazing style of cowboy rhetoric that the current administration is known for using to mobilize right wing support and scare the rest of the electorate.

Second, the measured and responsible statesman and leader that we need in the White House would not be lured into declaring specific optional responses to hypothetical conjectures. As Obama stated, he would not rule out any option for responding to a critical situation involving the US or its allies and interests. The proper response would be considered and measured against the actual situation or circumstances. That type of response is not weak or waffling. It shows instead that the leader is willing to make tough decisions, but is not willing to be goaded into false bravado and irresponsible speculation.

Unfortunately, Clinton’s tactics display more clearly than before why she may well be the lesser qualified candidate to actually occupy the White House. Clinton and her campaign will apparently say anything to try to gain an edge. Her campaign is running ads that are designed to suggest [to the lesser educated public] that there is some connection between Obama and Osama Bin Laden, and that Clinton would stand up to the Muslim terrorist leader while Obama might not. This tactic, of course, is one we might expect from extreme right wing groups trying to imply that Obama is a Muslim [which he is not]. This is about the lowest Clinton has stooped since her debacle of denigrating Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the accomplishments of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's , prior to the South Carolina and Alabama nominating contests. Her desperation suggests that she may be the more adept mudslinging and deceitful campaigner. But those traits are the opposite of the character that the country needs so badly in the leadership position as President of the United States.

A Drop in Quality Law School Instruction at UC Berkeley? Yoo Bet!

The recently revealed March 2003 memoranda written by John Yoo while working for David Addington in the White House Office of legal Counsel [OLC] cast a shadow on the credibility of the University of California [Berkeley] Law School. The caliber of Yoo’s legal acumen, judgment and ethics, as demonstrated by his drafting of these controversial legal opinions, would not qualify a typical “politically unconnected” lawyer for a job as paralegal at any respectable law firm. Yet John Yoo enjoys the prestige and remuneration as a professor at the UC Berkeley School of Law.

Consider the consensus review of the quality of the legal opinion Yoo gave the Bush Administration regarding the use of “aggressive interrogation” tactics, which have been proven officially sanctioned torture of prisoners by US military agents. The Yoo memorandum, later recanted by the OLC as “unreliable,” established the standard approved at the White House and Cabinet level used by the CIA and Pentagon for disregarding virtually every previously established treaty and legal standard barring human rights violations in the name of purportedly fighting global terrorism. In the words of Dan Froomkin, author of The Washington Post's "White House Briefing" blog, Yoo’s 81 page memo is "a historic document ... the ultimate expression of Cheney's belief that anything the president or his designates do - no matter how illegal, barbaric or un-American - is justifiable in the name of national self-defense... It is also an example of how enabling zealots to disregard the rule of law and the customary boundaries of human conduct leads to madness.”

This is the memo shown to Gen, Geoffrey Miller before he was sent from the Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp to Abu Ghraib with orders to take control of the prison from Gen. Janis Karpinski and “GITMO-ize” [as he referred to it] that facility. There is no clear evidence of prisoner abuse approaching the magnitude exposed in the internationally embarrassing Abu Ghraib scandal prior to Miller’s arrival. Thus, the argument that the torture at Abu Ghraib was a product of renegade subordinates is manifestly false. The violations of international standards of human rights, rising to the level of potential war crimes [as evidenced by the charges the Bush Administration leveled against its subordinates in retaliation for seeking to place the blame at higher levels], arose directly from orders and approved conduct by officials at the Pentagon and White House.

Yoo’s unsound thinking and incompetent reasoning extends further. A footnote in the March 2003 memo reveals a second John Yoo memorandum that directly undermines the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution, the right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. That still classified memorandum, titled "Authority for Use of Military Force to Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States," reasons that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to military operations authorized by the President on American soil against US citizens as long as the President contends that the actions of the military are to protect national security by fighting global terrorism. This reasoning is not only vague and illogical, it directly contravenes many decades of precedent constraining the operation of the military and the CIA within the US borders and against US citizens. The list of dictators and despots using national military forces against citizens of their countries is long and disgusting. These are the types of abuses by King George of England that sparked the American Rebellion and led to the founding of the United States as an independent nation based upon a rule of law and due process guarantees. Yet John Yoo sought to invest George W. Bush with authority to enter that pantheon of international despots.

If Yoo was simply a political zealot willing to offer up any opinion sought by his superiors, Addington and Cheney, then his personal ethical standards and adherence to his oath upon entering the Bar [Cannon of Ethics requires independent judgment and advice],suggest that Yoo lacks the judgment and moral fiber to participate in the formation and instruction of new lawyers. On the other hand, if Yoo actually believes that his opinions were sound and based upon his best legal reasoning, then he needs to enroll himself in the UC Berkeley Law School to obtain a refresher course on the principles of the rule of law and the US Constitution. In any event, the Administration of the UC Berkeley Law School has shown an astounding lack of judgment and integrity in exposing its students to John Yoo as a representative of legal scholarship and experience. This is not simply a question of a politically controversial figure being appointed to a high profile post. Under any political stripe, Yoo’s work would be considered second or third rate legal analysis at best, and more accurately a case of incompetence.

Yoo just happens to be Asian and it may be that the UC was searching for any high profile professor of color in light of the curtailment of recruiting students of color after the Bakke decision. If so, the decision to hire Yoo is doubly wrong. The students who displaced Bakke were demonstrably qualified, but did not score as high as Bakke on standardized admissions testing criteria. Hiring John Yoo because of his race when he is manifestly incompetent and less qualified than many other experienced law professors and lawyers is precisely the evil that Bakke purported to extinguish. This, however, is more likely a case of political cronyism. Nevertheless, Yoo’s appointment has done more damage to the integrity of the University of California Law School than any potential damage that affirmative action could have wrought before the Bakke case

Winning the Battle to Lose the War? The Democratic Nomination Process.

Having read with some interest the ongoing debate about whether the continuing heated contest for Presidential candidacy between Senator’s Clinton and Obama is helping or hurting the Democratic Party, my thought is that a major point is being missed. The only real damage or risk to the Democratic Party and to the eventual candidate is if the contest participants fail to remind and discipline their respective followers that uniting behind one candidate in the general election is the primary goal.

Strong emotional support for a candidate can be a useful tool in political campaigns to build a strong volunteer support base and to encourage word of mouth recruitment. Problems arise when emotion overtakes reason and emotional support turns to zealotry. We have all seem evidence of such lapses and excesses in the campaign recently. When objectives of candidate supporters and candidate handlers become destruction of the opponent rather than extolling the virtues of their own candidate, everyone loses [except perhaps the opposing GOP Party candidate]. There is a line between vetting and testing a candidate for an upcoming national election contest, on one hand, and debilitating a candidate through massive exhaustion of energy and resources in a nomination war of attrition.

One potential benefit, it is argued, of a continued nomination battle is that it keeps the candidates in the spotlight and increases general participation in the electoral process. The veracity of that argument is yet to be proven, but there is logic to support it. When people feel strongly about electoral politics they may be more motivated to go to the polls to express their views. The flip side of that issue may be that voters who are overly bound emotionally to a potential nominee may decide to sit out the national election if their candidate is not the eventual nominee. That is the potential disaster that the Democratic Party must go to great lengths to prevent. Unfortunately, the candidates do not seem to recognize this potential disaster. They should be preaching to the voters in the states that have already held primaries and caucuses to prepare to rally behind the nominee, no matter whether that candidate is Clinton or Obama. This would not detract from the parallel message of the candidates fighting for each additional delegate and vote in primaries yet to be held. Yet neither candidate seems to display the selflessness of leadership required to assure the ultimate objective, that of retaking the White House in the November election.

Recent polls indicate that a striking number of Clinton supporters say that they would not back the Democratic Presidential candidate unless it is Hillary Clinton. A substantially larger number of Obama supporters say that they will support the Democratic nominee, even if Obama is not the eventual candidate. Critics have chastised Clinton for her self-serving strategies that seem more focused upon personal power than policy advances. This attitudinal bent may be playing itself out or may be translated to her supporters. While Obama supporters do not seem to show the same level of self-centered ruthlessness, the candidate’s failure to address the issue publicly is a definite shortcoming in his campaign to demonstrate the kind of moral courage the nation truly needs so badly.

The Absurdity of the Bush Anti-Terrorism Foreign Policy

The United States treasury and the people of the country are currently staggering under the weight of a multi trillion dollar fiasco initiated by the Bush Administration with the invasion and destabilization of Iraq. That cost is further elevated by the increase in oil prices now pushing the cost of gasoline to $4 per gallon and threatening to deepen the current economic recession. Yet recent death tolls in Baghdad and in Iraq, the continuing lack of a stable government and continued lack of rebuilt infrastructure clearly demonstrate that the adventure was not only deceitful, but was ill conceived from the beginning. The mismanagement and incompetence that has followed, leading to thousands of lost US soldiers and hundreds of thousands of lost Iraqi people, only reinforces the conviction that the Bush Administration “Anti-Terrorism” foreign policy is both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Switch focus to the Western Hemisphere where the Bush Administration payment of millions of dollars to Columbia for anti-drug programs and anti-terrorist interventions each year has sought to buy the friendship of countries in South America. The abject failure of the Bush policy and of Bush personally was demonstrated in the recent incident at the Ecuador border with Columbia. In a model of the Bush policy of arrogance, President Uribe of Columbia launched a unilateral and unauthorized attack on Ecuadorian soil to target a camp where leaders of the FARC rebel group were hiding. Instead of bilateral cooperation and traditional international diplomacy practices, Uribe decided to violate Ecuadorian sovereignty. The attack killed a FARC leader and a number of innocent women and children as well. Ecuador’s protest was joined by fellow South American leaders and was upheld by the Organization of American States. Not one leader was willing to support the actions by Uribe, who is viewed as a puppet or crony of Bush. The leaders did acknowledge that there was a problem of guerilla groups crossing borders, but stressed that intergovernmental cooperation is the proper way to deal with such problems, not unilateral violations of national sovereignty. Uribe was humiliated and promised never to do it again. Thus, the stature of Bush and his foreign policy has been exposed in another theater.

Switch focus to US border with Mexico where armed drug cartels have been murdering police officials with impunity in border towns. Groups such as the Loma Bonita Cartel, Los Zetas and the Sinaloa Cartel have weapons and munitions that exceed the resources of the local police and the state police. They use money from illegal drug trade to purchase weapons, influence [bribery] and manpower. This power is employed to secure cocaine trafficking routes into the US. The Mexican Government has sent troops to assist local authorities, but the corruption is so rampant that more than 15% of the local and state police are believed to be on the payroll of the cartels. The US has sent $500 million in aid, but that amount compares to the estimated $23 billion annual drug trade. So the local police either assist or look the other way as cartel assassins openly murder any police official that threatens the drug trade. US Border agents have been murdered as well. And the flow of cocaine into the US continues, with the resulting toll of death and destruction flowing from its distribution and use.

If one were a logical thinker, it might seem sensible to employ the “principles” of national security and anti-terrorism to the situation in Mexico to fight an evident danger, rather than sending troops to Iraq to fight a non-existent threat. Yet the Bush Administration has failed to do so. For a price tag of less than is spent in a month in Iraq, the US could form a joint mission with Mexico and sweep back the cartel stronghold in the space of a year. In fact, however, the US military currently lacks the resources to accomplish such a mission even though it is far more relevant to the actual responsibility of the US armed forces than the “Mission” in Iraq. But resources aside, the Bush administration is sounding a drumbeat for War with Iran, which demonstrates the wrongheaded logic of the White House. Even if resources were available, it is doubtful that Bush would employ them in a rational manner.

And we have heard nothing from the Presidential candidates about their thinking on foreign policy issues relating to actual safety and security of the US borders and against the terrorism and destruction relating to the cross border drug trade. We can only hope that Clinton, Obama or McCain can construct some policies that are more coherent and rational.

Free Market Theory and the Conservative Movement

The adherence to “free market” principles has some limits that the “Conservative” cult fails to heed. One of the drawbacks of political ideology is that extreme passion too often misses or ignores fine distinctions. As Emerson has been frequently quoted, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” A free market does not necessarily mean that no regulation is appropriate. Nor does it mean that everything is for sale at the “market rate.”

Recent economic turmoil has exposes the folly and the discrepancies, if not outright hypocrisy, of the Conservative ideology. A prime example is the whining and begging by the finance industry [the engine of the Conservative – free market economy] for government bailouts after staggering losses in equity because of rapacious and predatory lending programs that raked in billions of dollars in profits. Bear Stearns recently reported a loss of nearly half its market capitalization, largely because of losses on bad mortgage lending accounts. Private wealth has led to public risk and the entire economy is now in recession as a result of irresponsible lending practices in the housing market.

"If the Fed hadn’t acted this morning and Bear did default on its obligations, then that could have triggered a very widespread panic and potentially a collapse of the financial system."
JAMES L. MELCHER, president of Balestra Capital, a hedge fund based in New York.

Now that the bubble has burst, the tune being sung by the banking industry is quite different from the traditional anti-regulation anthem of the Conservative hymnbook. So what happens? The Federal Reserve dips into the public purse to bail out Bear Stearns. Those Bear Stearns executives that approved and personally profited by the faulty lending programs will not bear any burden other than the requirement of spending a few boring evenings at GOP fundraisers or the White House, and cutting a few checks in campaign contributions equaling a mere fraction of their personal profits. Conservative Movement Ideology redux: Regulation is bad unless it is used to bail me out of a significant loss from my own bad judgment.

Another folly being played out in the Bush Administration is the interpretation of governmental purpose. George W. Bush ran for election on a platform that government is bad for business and bad for the “American people.” He keeps claiming to know what “the American people” want. Just who these “people” are that he refers to is still not entirely clear. However, one thing that we have seen clearly and consistently, as the size of the Federal government has grown steadily under his watch, is that for the Bush Administration, government as inventory is apparently not seen quite so negatively. The examples of Bush Administration treating government largesse as a commodity to be sold on the open market are in the multitudes and more are surfacing daily. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Bush Administration is under fire and pressure to resign after revelations of how he steered profitable government contracts on behalf of his personal cronies for projects in New Orleans [Katrina was not a “disaster,” it was an “opportunity”] and the Virgin Islands. Wolfowitz and the long list of Bush officials escorted out of office for self-dealing demonstrates the prevalent ideology and ethic of the Conservative Movement leaders chosen to manage the US government offices under Pres. Bush.

The transfer of billions of dollars in no-bid government contracts to Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR to provide nearly ¾ the entire supply of support services and material in Iraq is another example of the “government or public trust for sale.” Whatever one thinks about the engagement in the Iraq war, it is clear that the troops need to be adequately supplied and supported with food, clothing, medical supplies and other basic needs. Most of these things are not sophisticated goods that require any extraordinary expertise or that involve any proprietary trade secrets. These latter criteria are supposed to be the only times [other than extreme emergency based upon short term time constraints, a condition clearly not applicable on contracts running for years] that could justify not opening up such government contracts for public bid. Yet the Bush Administration has committed billions of dollars in public funds without competitive bidding to the company previously run by the Vice President, and continues to do so even after proof of multiple fraudulent billing incidents involving overcharges in the tens of millions of dollars. Conservative Movement Ideology redux: “Governmental power is bad, unless it can be sold or leveraged in the free market for personal gain or to steer large profits to one’s friends and associates for their personal gain at the expense of the public.”

Whether the public truly wants better government and what will be required to return to an ethic of true "public stewardship" and "public service" is a question that the electorate will have to face in the November elections. For the old maxim is still true: "The people will get as poor a government as they are willing to accept, and as good a government as they are willing to work for." The endemic corruption of the Conservative Movement will continue to provide extreme presure for the people to accept the worst and dissuade them from rising up to demand better.

What South Carolina Voters Really Told Us.

While self important and frequently clueless mainstream political pundits wrestle with each other to divine deeper meaning from the South Carolina Presidential Primary results, through twisted logic and biased lenses, they often miss the obvious. The voters came out in droves, a fact which alone tells us that there is strong sentiment toward more public involvement and voter responsibility for what form the leadership of this country takes. Their numbers include a very low turnout among Republican voters, indicating a deep sense of despair or disillusionment with current Republican “leadership.” One does not need to dig too deep or ponder long to reach these patent conclusions.

Another thing that the South Carolina results tell us is that there is a serious risk and an exposed underbelly to the Clinton campaign or any campaign that wants to hodwink voters. The Democratic voters were sophisticated enough to recognize that Hillary Clinton had all but written off the state two months ago, sending Former President Clinton in to try to salvage the situation with often highhanded and ill-considered negative tactics that obviously backfired. Despite superficial and dishonest reassurances by Hillary and her campaign spokesmen to the contrary, she effectively conceded the state by choosing to campaign elsewhere and reduce outreach expenditures. That strategy may have been prudent in light of a "national" campaign, but the falsehood of the reassurances was not wise when the people in South Carolina could obviously see that they were untrue.

In addition, the public comments by both Clinton candidates exposed a veneer of "racial brotherhood" and the underlying racial insensitivity that lies beneath (or at least a willingness to appeal to voters of such persuasion). These actions undercut the political capital of Bill Clinton's popularity among Black voters that he sought to use in support of his wife's candidacy. Bill Clinton demeaned potential Black voters by telling them that they need not be “afraid” to vote for his wife, as if these voters were too unsophisticated to recognize their own self interest and lacked the courage to vote their convictions. The Clinton campaign’s raising the issue of “civil rights” credibility was another stupid blunder. There is no question that all Democratic candidates have done more to honor the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. than any of the apparent Republican contestants in the Presidential sweepstakes. Why then was the issue raised if not to subtly persuade white voters and dissuade Black voters by appearing to discredit the sincerity and commitment of Obama and playing the race card?

Another obvious lesson taught by the South Carolina Primary was that sleeping dogs should usually be left lying in peace. Everyone was aware that the presence of Bill Clinton was lurking in the background of the Hillary Clinton candidacy. As long as Bill Clinton kept a low profile and declined any type of attack strategy, he could be viewed as a positive asset to bolster the largely false claims of “experience” touted by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. While she personally lacks those qualifications, her ability to draw upon her husband’s experiences could be seen as an advantage. In addition, staying on the high road would have made Hillary Clinton more appealing to the left and moderate voters who are tired of the pall of negativism and pessimism cast by the Republican President and his administration. Voters are eager to have hope again, and the cutthroat approach recently adopted by the Clinton candidates works against that positive image. Moreover, the Clinton strategy was sloppy. They attacked Obama for supposed links to a Chicago "slumlord"while failing to check to see if there were any demonstrable links between that disparaged figure and the Clintons. It turns out such evidence surfaced, requiring Hillary to explain away the connection.

Obama’s campaign has not been fully successful in staying out of the muck and mire, but has appeared to try to do so. This is more admirable during the Primaries and before facing the inevitable mudslinging that will ensue in a battle with a Republican candidate. In responding to the Bill Clinton attacks, however, Obama exposed another serious weakness in the Hillary Clinton campaign. The fantasy that Bill Clinton could accept a role of elder statesman and advisor, if Hillary were elected, has been shattered. Obama’s questioning of which person he is actually running against highlighted the issue of the “co-Presidency.” While many fans and supporters of Bill Clinton in the democratic ranks are eager for his return to the White House, there are also many voters who have not let go of the facts of his poor judgment in the Monica Lewinsky matter and the impeachment proceedings.

George W. Bush has chosen to exclude his Ex-President father from Presidential adviser status during his tenure, when the advice of the elder would have been very beneficial in light of the ineptitude, incompetence and egotistical stubbornness of the son. Hillary has invited her Ex-president husband to be active in that circle when she apparently does not to need to do so. Her decision to deploy Bill Clinton in that role suggests two things. First, it suggests that her candidacy is a “back-door” way to return Bill Clinton to the Presidency when he could not get there legally. Second, there is a hint of the notion that Hillary lacks, or fears that she lacks, the mettle to handle the Presidency on her own. Supporters and those taking a close look at Hillary Clinton would eschew that notion. However, her detractors and those playing the gender card would quickly attempt to capitalize on this impression.

So the South Carolina voters have told us that all campaigns need to think more carefully about superficial attempts to sway voters with insincere messages that appeal to the baser instincts and the lower intelligences. They have demanded that any candidate seeking their support do so honestly and sincerely. They have declared that the coming election of a new President is an important matter, and one that they take seriously enough to mobilize and express their opinions at the ballot box. All candidates should take heed of these obvious messages. The voters in the upcoming primaries are doubtless no less sophisticated, motivated and upset with the current way things are done in Washington.

The Land of McCain and The Able

A recent news report extensively documents the impact of the new immigration law in Arizona that went into effect on January 1, 2008. That law imposes strict sanctions upon illegal alien workers and also imposes severe sanctions upon business that employ such workers, including the loss of business license or being shut down. The analysis of whether the effects from enacting the new law are the unintended consequences of poorly conceived legislation or the calculated result of a thinly veiled racist measure will undoubtedly come in the future. However, those results are real and serious in the here and now. What seems clear is that anyone seeking an environment of brotherhood, ethnic tolerance and conciliation had better steer wide of the home state of presidential candidate John McCain.

The impact of the new law is being felt on many levels. Hispanic employees are leaving the state in droves to return to their country of origin or to other states without such draconian laws. The exodus has been dubbed “Hispanic Panic.” Companies are being forced to raise wages to try to attract a small and shrinking pool of talented and prized workers. Hispanic workers who are in the United States legally, but who may have spouses or other relatives without legal status are leaving the state because of the fear of direct or indirect deportation consequences.

According to an immigration rights activist in Phoenix: "The fear is not only at the worker level, it's at the employer level. I've never seen that before in my life." He also predicted that the skilled Hispanic workers who stay will be laid off and paid in cash in a growing black market or underground economy. the fear factor can be seen in the example of the crew chief for a landscape firm who has legal status, but whose wife does not. He is packing up his family and leaving, including three children who were born in the US and have legal status.

The president of a construction company expressed regret at laying off ten Hispanic employees, some of whom were his best employees. But he said he could not risk losing his license. Even a suspension during an investigation during a competitive bidding process could cripple the company economically, regardless of the ultimate investigation results. Such companies report searching hard for replacement workers among American vets and ex-convicts seeking to re-enter the labor market. While hiring unskilled vets may have economic and political appeal and hiring ex-convicts more dubious merit, in either case the companies lose by having to replace skilled and reliable workers with less skilled and unproven workers. Businesses are also fearful of exposure to attacks from competitors who might seek economic advantage by reporting alleged violations of the law in order to disrupt their operations.

The effects of this environment of fear are widespread. Real estate agents report calls for advice from homeowners who want to know what to do with their homes as a result of lost jobs and income or simply because of the perceived need to flee a hostile state. These families are calculating the risks and the costs of simply abandoning their homes and departing, allowing the homes to fall into foreclosure and worsening that aspect of the state economy.

In some heavily Hispanic areas of Phoenix, three of four students have left the school and school attendance overall has dropped, despite assurances that officials will not be allowed into the schools to seize them. Thus it is clear that the atmosphere of fear has permeated all age groups from adults to school children.

In the wake of the George W. Bush administration’s cultivated climate of fear, based primarily upon falsehoods and appeals ethnically and religiously based prejudices, the question whether John McCain and the “Arizona model” is something that this country can afford or indeed can survive. Whatever his current rhetoric may be out on the presidential campaign trail, it should be noted that he does not seem to be aggressively and publicly attacking this unfortunate and misguided legislation. Even those in Arizona who affirm that some change was needed to address the illegal immigration issue reject this law that seems only designed to damage the business and economic interests of the state. Aside from the economic impact from the exodus of skilled workers to Nevada and other nearby states, the law squarely places Arizona in the limelight as a bastion of racial purity protectors or malicious bigots.

Quite obviously, if the purported reason for the measure, to protect “American” jobs were valid, there would be a wave of qualified candidates in Arizona or from other states lining up to take the place of the Hispanic workers fleeing Arizona's hostile ethnic environment. But the business owners report that this clearly is not the case, as they cry out for skilled workers to do the available work. This seems yet another example of unfounded fears and racial prejudices being inflamed by politicians. As we look forward then, inquiring minds should be asking what type of leadership can be expected from Arizona Senator John McCain, should his quest for the White House be successful. Does America really want or need a continuation of a policy and mindset that, unlike Philadelphia's motto (The City of “Brotherly Love”) will brand the United States as the land of “brotherly jealousy, suspicion and hatred?”

Media: Boy Oh Boy, Barrack, We Couldn’t Wait!

In a rural Iowa campaign stop for John Edwards, a genuine or planted audience question finally let the proverbial “Black cat” out of the bag. And believe me, the press has been salivating for the event. Some doddering old bigot in the crowd asked in a seemingly oblique and confused manner how Edwards and the Democrats would deal with the “OJ Simpson” issue. At first, Edwards scratched his head and wondered what in the hell the guy was talking about. In follow up, the audience member pointed out his belief that the jury in the OJ Simpson criminal trial found the Black American defendant innocent as “payback” for the mistreatment of Black Americans in society. In a continued confused ramble, the audience member speculated that if Barrack Obama were elected President, it follows that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Oprah Winfrey would demand recompense for Black Americans because of such maltreatment through Obama.

Well the press rushed to blow up what typically would have been viewed as a crackpot incident at a campaign stump. Instead of giving the incident the lack of attention it deserved, it became a major media event upon which various pundits have speculated that the incident shows that Iowans are basically racists, even if they are hiding that racism in the closet. Others have suggested that the racial issue is a subtext in the Presidential election that will undoubtedly provide grist for the media mill in weeks to come. How this old coot became "representative"of anyone, including Iowans is a confounding question.

It would seem beyond obvious that all Black folks do not think alike or happen to be close allies as the bigoted kook’s question would suggest. No two people's views could be farther apart than the views espoused by Obama and Secretary of State Rice, both of whom happen to be politicians of color. Even if Obama, Jackson, Sharpton and Winfrey held the same view about the OJ Simpson , an assumption that is extremely doubtful - if any of them even give a rat’s patoot about the subject any more, the notion that such commonality would have any relevance to an Obama presidency is totally absurd.

As Edwards pointed out, there are many current and real issues that face the American public, and Black Americans seem to be disproportionately bereft of health care, educational opportunities and health care. Rather than focusing on an irrelevant topic of the OJ trial, we ought to be focused on what can be done now and in the future to address these disparities so that America can perhaps become a land of truly equal opportunity. That was a relatively nice save by Edwards in an embarrassingly difficult situation.

Perhaps the most we can profitably draw from the event is that there still lurk among the voting public a significant number of racist and bigoted political Neanderthals who are opposed to the idea of a Black President [and seem seriously frightened by their ignorance]. Secondly, a fourth estate devoid of scruples and judgment lies in wait for such a salacious and unworthy topic to be raised so that it can be exploited. The media have been feasting on the notion that many similarly retrograde voters are fearful of having a woman in the White House. But these same media representatives have been fearful of bringing up the “N” word. They needed the help of some crackpot bigot in rural Iowa to raise the issue so that they could exploit it.

Hopefully, the event will die a well deserved prompt death and the media can focus on some of the real issues that seriously threaten to undermine our democracy. Cutting off health care and educational funding while demanding billions of dollars for Iraq is a greater concern regarding where government largesse should go than whether Obama is concerned about OJ Simpson. We now know, for example, that various boondoggles like the base in Iraq for which the American public has paid over $31 billion dollars and was never built are all too common. Whether the next President is Black, White, man, woman or frog, we should be asking what the candidates will do to put a stop to such corruption and hemorrhaging of the public treasury. The real issue, as usual, is not Black of White, but a green one.

Altered States

Various factions of philosophers, mathematicians and science fiction writers have toyed with the notion that there may be multiple “realities” that co-exist, and that have authenticity for those persons who inhabit each separate reality. Whether labeled as a “parallel universe” or “altered state” each alternative reality has its own set of intrinsic rules and system integrity. The theoretical problems arise when these alternative realities intersect. These theoretical intersections result in substantial harm to one of the worlds or both. The damage would arise because the physical nature of the different “beings” in one reality is anathema or toxic to beings in the other, or because the norms, values and rules of behavior in one system of reality seriously conflicts with those of the other.

Politics is frequently viewed as a world of “unreality” where fiction is a stock in trade and facts are "optional.” But recent Bush Administration activities call into question whether these officials are indeed operating in some kind of parallel reality that not only fails to recognize facts we view as proven, but operates under a different set of rules and values that are dangerous and destructive to our known existence.

Consider three different reports recently announced that are intertwined. The first is a report based upon a consensus of oil industry and global market experts indicating that a number of current major oil exporting nations may become net importers of petroleum within the next decade or two. This trend and shift is a result of increasing domestic demand for oil and petroleum products and rapid growth and development within these oil producing nations. One country included in the list of countries likely to significantly reduce its export of oil and potentially become a net importer is Iran.

The second report is the most recent National Intelligence Assessment that advises that Iran abandoned its program for development of nuclear weapons more than four years ago. The timing and impact of this report is significant in the face of the persistent Bush Administration drumbeat over the past year or more calling for aggressive confrontation and making overt threats of military attacks against Iran to force that country to halt its nuclear weapons program. [A program Iran had previously abandoned]

The third report comes in the past week, as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates visited the Middle East and made bellicose pronouncements urging the Gulf States to join with the US in pressuring Iran to abandon its drive to obtain nuclear weapons. The Gulf States rejected the Gates proposal and chided the US for its hypocrisy and diplomatic ineptitude. The Gulf Cooperation Council pointed out that the confirmed intelligence report by US experts indicates that Iran dropped its nuclear weapons program years ago. Thus, Gates was at best seriously overstating the “threat” from Iran to the stability of the region. In addition, they pointed out the hypocrisy in the US refusal to acknowledge that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons was an equal or greater threat to regional stability.

While it may be impossible to state with certainty what the Iranian government “thinks” or harbors in its heart of hearts, there is an established value and principle of American democracy that one should not be punished for his thoughts, only for his actions. The notion that the US or any other country has a right to demand that Iran explain its future intentions regarding the possible development of a weapons program or risk threatened unilateral military attack by the US is not only senseless but antithetical to the norms and values upon which our known existence operates. Under no set of circumstances would the US government accede to such a demand. Such arrogance is not only politically unwise, but risks provoking a military conflagration that could precipitate World War III.

A reasonable person would question whether it is unreasonable policy for Iran to take current steps to enrich uranium for domestic energy production in the face of increasing internal demand for oil. Some might even suggest that such moves to produce nuclear energy would be wise domestic policy. That policy could actually be more beneficial to the US than threatening. After all, the US consumes 25% of the world’s current oil production and shows no signs of curbing its appetite in any significant way. Indeed, the Bush Administration and the GOP faithful have resisted all meaningful attempts to force a reduction in US oil consumption through new laws or genuine enforcement of existing regulations. The less oil that Iran consumes domestically, the less it will be required to reduce its level of oil exports.

Why then would the Bush Administration ignore obvious facts, reject logic that most of us would consider inescapable, and instead choose to provoke a confrontation that could result in a global war? May we not at least consider that George W. Bush is operating in an alternative or parallel universe in which his rules, norms and values are distinctly and dangerously at odds with those that we consider to be bedrock? As we look backward, the evidence is manifest. Bush supported torture when the entire civilized international community rejects it. The Bush Administration used chemical weapons against civilians in Fallujah when international human rights principles condemn the practice. The Bush Administration vetoed legislation to provide medical coverage to the poorest children in the US because he deemed %35 Billion over seven years to be too expensive. At the same time, his Administration demands the funding, without limits, to expend more than $8 Billion each month to continue the US occupation in Iraq. The list goes on and on, but the evidence of a fundamental difference in values and concept of reality is all but overwhelming.

Our failure to acknowledge this dysfunction and the dangers involved may be like a person refusing to see a doctor despite all the symptoms of a very serious illness. The risk is that the internal damage from the ravages of the deleterious infection may become so serious and irreversible that the “patient” [the world as we know it] may never be able to recover.

Dare We Look in the Mirror?

The United States Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case involving the irrepressibly vexing issue of whether the United States Government can legitimately run a concentration camp in Cuba [Guantanamo Bay or “GITMO”] that denies detainees the right to question whether they are being held without justification. The US Congress sought to override prior rulings by the Highest Court in the Rasual and Hamdan cases that prison facilities operated by the US Government were bound to apply the Constitutional principles of habeas corpus to detainees. The Military Commissions Act has been a political football in which inflamed passions about protecting the country against insidious enemy “terrorists” have been pitted against equally impassioned critics who contend that if we permit the underlying principles of justice to be discarded for the convenience of what appear to be exigent circumstances, we destroy the foundation and the very system we are supposedly fighting to protect.

There is no question that US citizens are entitled under our Constitution and system of justice to a due process procedure, called “habeas corpus,” to challenge the government’s basis for their imprisonment. This age old judicial principle derives from the Magna Carta or before and speaks to the limits of absolute power of the sovereign to imprison those designated by the sovereign as undesirable. Without habeas corpus, the sovereign [who could do no wrong] could simply round up and imprison anyone he or she chose without reason or justification. The Bush Administration argues that these detainees are not US citizens and are not "persons" to who we should extend protections of the Constitutions. Setting aside the fact that international law also engenders principles of habeas corpus, we must also remember that this country has traveled down this road before is the case of slavery. By denying human beings the designation of being "persons" it was contrived that they should be denied basic human rights. The Bush government can accept the fundamental principle that "all men are created equal" as long as they get to decide who are "men" and who are not.

The principle of habeas corpus does not seek to determine the ultimate guilt or innocence of the prisoner. It simply seeks to challenge and require the government to show that there is at least an arguably legitimate basis for holding the person captive. History has shown us that there are ample and relatively simple reasons why a person may be wrongfully held.

In the first instance, a simple error in identification could result in the wrong person being arrested and held captive. Habeas corpus would enable the detainee to show that he or she is not the person that the authorities intended to capture. Yet prisoners have been held in GITMO for years without this basis safety mechanism. The Bush government apparently contends that it would be a "threat to national security" to allow a wrongfully detained person to prove that the government made even a simple administrative error.

A related problem has arisen when vengeful neighbors have falsely “informed” on others upon various ulterior motives and caused the wrongful arrest and detention of prisoners. In one example, an informer owed a substantial amount of money. To avoid the debt, he “informed” on the person he owed money to and falsely claimed that the merchant had terrorist affiliations. The merchant was arrested and held without any right to challenge his accuser or the basis for the charges. Obviously, the debtor “informer” successfully avoided paying a just debt by abusing the system. Sometimes the false informant has wrongfully accused a neighbor simply because "reward" money was offered and his family was in dire economic straits.

On the other hand, the government has undoubtedly rounded up and detained some individuals who have been involved in activities that could threaten the safety of US citizens and possibly have plotted or conspired with others to conduct acts of terrorism. Our system of justice has survived for hundreds of years, albeit with imperfections, and justifiably detained malefactors intent upon crime and disrupting the public safety. The system has been corrupted most egregiously when attempts have been made to use shortcuts and to dispense with the founding and guiding principles of our system of jurisprudence.

What harm is there in requiring the government to put forward evidence to show that they have detained the person they sought to imprison? Would it imperil our country to require the government to show that there is credible and corroborated evidence to support a finding of probable cause? Is it too much to ask that the government put forward some credible basis for the accusation that the person has committed or was in the process of planning the commission of a serious crime? These steps are done hundreds of thousands of times across our country each day and the country has survived. Why is the Bush government afraid of practicing the principles of justice that he contends that we are fighting the “terrorists” to protect?

In World War II, the US government rounded up people of Asian ancestry and held them in prison camps based upon hysteria and bigoted assumptions having nothing to do with evidence of culpability for crimes or actual threats to the public safety of American people. Decades later, we are still trying to live down the shame associated with that blight on the American character.

During the “McCarthy” era, people were accused of communist conspiracy and their lives were destroyed on the basis of coercion, hysteria and the abandonment of the fundamental principles of justice that our system is based upon. People still refer to that period and that process with a sense of scorn and shame as one of the lowest points in American history.

Another aspect that bears consideration is the fallacy in the Bush Administration argument for detention of “enemy combatants.” In situations where such concerns are properly applied, there is a defined conflict and a defined enemy. The dispute is typically of some determinate period and when it is resolved the combatants reach an armistice and the “enemy combatants” are released to return to their lives. In the present scenario, the purported “enemy” is terrorism and there is no way to determine when the conflict is over and no opponent or enemy with who to negotiate an armistice or peace treaty. Thus, the concept of “enemy combatant” is being distorted and abused for political purposes. The victims of this fraud are the detainees and the system of justice itself.

Will the “GITMO” era be likewise judged in our history as another nadir in the cycle of American jurisprudence? Will we look back at this as a period of insanity and yet another example of when the country lost its way? Will we wonder how we managed to lose or abandon our moral compass and trash the very principles upon which we have claimed that the strength of our system of government and justice is founded? At bottom, the right of habeas corpus is not about granting rights or privileges to the purported “enemy” or to the detainees. The procedure is a tool for self examination, a self-diagnostic to determine whether our system is functioning in accordance with the basic principles of freedom and democracy. Unless we can summon the courage and strength to look in the mirror without blinking, then the entire exercise of the “American Experiment” is pointless. There is no rule of law, there is no principle of justice and there is no democracy. We simply have a system of convenience to be exploited by any demagogue and blown in any direction that the prevailing wind happens to choose for the moment. Is that what we wish to see when we look in the mirror? In light of the current situation and the Supreme Court currently packed with possible political sycophants instead of principled legal scholars, dare we look in the mirror?

A Question In Need Of Asking ... Are You Nuts?

The question for the day is…exactly how out of touch with reality and just plain nuts does one have to be before a genuine examination of one’s mental state is warranted? The question has come up in several contexts where the failure to intervene has yielded disastrous results.

In West Virginia, a young man with deadly weapons at his disposal was recognized as having a history of irrational and bizarre behavior. He took those weapons and walked on campus and killed several people. In retrospect, the officials questioned whether earlier and more responsible intervention as to his mental state would have prevented the disaster.

In New Hampshire, a man that had a history of mental issues walked into the Clinton campaign Headquarters and held several people hostage before finally surrendering to police. He not only had access to weapons, but rigged a fake bomb to his chest. The event ended peacefully, but not without serious psychological trauma to those held against their wills.

Yesterday, President George W. Bush stood before press representatives and TV cameras to announce that, in his mind, a National Intelligence Assessment report that confirms that Iran had halted its program for the development of nuclear weapons back in 2003 represents a warning sign that Iran is a present nuclear threat.

The report is based upon thorough analysis by the entire intelligence expert community. It states that even if Iran decided to restart a nuclear weapons program, it would take a minimum of two years for the country to produce enough weapons grade nuclear fuel to create a nuclear weapon. In addition, such a timetable would have to assume that Iran could proceed without any significant technical problems or interruptions. In addition, the country would have to divert its current resources and expert personnel devoted to producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes [a substantial current investment] to a weapons program. The clear consensus of the experts based upon all available tangible evidence is that such an event is very unlikely.

The assessment reportedly was issued and made public directly to prevent an end run or manipulation by the White House. As we now know the White House twisted and misrepresented the conclusions of a prior National Intelligence Assessment in order to dupe Congress into authorizing a military invasion of Iraq. That concern and distrust is valid in light of the repeated calls from Vice President Cheney for a military strike against Iran. The purpose of such a unilateral attack would be to shut down a nuclear weapons program that the NIA report states has been defunct for over 4 years.

It is very difficult to comprehend how any rational person with a stable mind and emotional balance could read the National Intelligence Assessment and interpret the report as evidence of an immediate threat from an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Undoubtedly, Iran, Japan, Panama, Sweden or any country could theoretically or hypothetically decide to start a nuclear weapons program and develop such capacity to threaten the United States years from now. However, to suggest that Iran or any other such hypothetical future nuclear power presents an actual current and serious threat is nothing but the raving of a paranoid and perhaps delusional person. However, when that paranoid person has the deadly arsenal of United States at his disposal, someone should be asking the question…..

And if someone someone should summon the courage to exercise that ounce of prevention, to intervene early, think of the hundreds of thousands of lives that could be saved. How many American soldiers, Iraqi civilians and others have been killed, maimed or had their lives destroyed because of the failure to intervene and examine the mental balance of George W. Bush prior to the Iraq invasion. An attack on Iran would be far more destructive and far more costly in terms of human lives. Please call the men in the white coats before it is too late.

Knowing When to “Shut Up” – And When Not to

An interesting exchange occurred during an open session of the Ibero-American Summit in Santiago yesterday [Nov. 10] with King Juan Carlos of Spain chiding Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to “just shut up.” No doubt many share the same annoyance at times regarding Chavez's proclivity to speak his mind in a manner that is often “undiplomatic” to say the least. The exchange came after Chavez had referred to former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar as a “fascist.” Aznar, a Conservative party leader, is a close Bush ally and had backed the US invasion of Iraq against the sentiments of a large faction of the Spanish people. When Aznar was ousted following a popular election, Spain pulled back troops and the country promptly withdrew its support for the US led occupation of Iraq.

Blunt public references are nothing new to Chavez. He referred to US President George W. Bush as the “devil” during an open session of the United Nations, sparking strong criticism. So his negative reference to Aznar, who supported Bush in Iraq, was not totally unexpected. When the current Spanish Prime Minister sought to tone down the rhetoric by stating that Chavez should be more respectful of duly elected officials, despite clear political differences, Chavez attempted to interrupt. His microphone was cut off, and King Juan Carlos expressed agitation by suggesting that Chavez should “shut up.”

An interesting point in these exchanges is that those responding to Chavez do not directly state that Chavez is out of line in the substance of his beliefs, but rather that he is radical and impolitic in his manner of expressing his views. In effect, the major criticism of Chavez lies in his lack of diplomacy. In response to the criticism by current Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero, Chavez did not respond to King Juan Carlos, but later commented on Zapatero's speech stating that the legitimacy of a leader derives not only from his plebiscite or having been elected by the people, but from whether that leader’s actions are legitimate uses of authority. Chavez has long contended that the Invasion of Iraq was an illegal and illegitimate abuse of power by Bush and his allies. Chavez has also railed against the US abuse of power in bullying South American nations through exploitive trade policies and through unfair and discriminatory World Bank policies that the US effectively controls.

Chavez is currently on a bit of a tightrope in his own country as well. Current civil unrest in Venezuela over a push by Chavez and his supporters to name him President for life under a new constitution highlights questions of his standing to challenge the overreaching by other political leaders. While admitting that Chavez has done many good things in his own country and for the good of other South American nations, primarily through use of Venezuelan oil resources, his opponents challenge that maintaining regular democratic elections in Venezuela is essential to the country’s forward progress. Centralization and consolidation of power in one person, they argue, is an open invitation to the abuses of power that are a painful characteristic of the nation’s past.

Ironically, Chavez seems to be heading unwittingly down the same road to self-destruction that Bush has traveled. By taking actions to consolidate and abuse power in his own country, Bush undercut his own legitimacy to challenge or criticize others for allegedly “undemocratic” governmental actions. Chavez risks undermining the moral authority that he does wield, albeit undiplomatically, in his insistence upon speaking truth to power. As my grandfather used to tell me, when you point a finger, remember that there are several fingers on your hand pointing back at yourself. Chavez needs to heed that admonition and consider whether his own personal actions and political aspirations are consistent with the principles he applies to others in his public statements.

GOP + Giuliani = MOS

The qualities, judgment and character of the pretenders to the throne of the US Presidency pose vital questions for our future, and the American public must decide whether they want more of the same – MOS. As the run up to the 2008 election continues, the media and the press seem to be improving performance of their basic responsibilities to the public, the job of providing information upon which the public can try to make an informed decision. The task for the voters is to sift through the mountain of information, decipher the biases inherent in the news sources, and make an intelligent choice. These past years of cronyism, incompetence and corruption, which have been the hallmarks and will be the legacy, of the George W. Bush Administration are not times that bear repeating if the “Great Experiment” is to survive. Yet the GOP seems to be positioning a frontrunner who suggests that MOS is its preference.

GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani is the close friend and mentor of Bernard Kerik, the former New York City Police Commissioner. Mr. Kerik was allowed to plead guilty to misdemeanor charges of accepting costly renovations to his Bronx apartment and failing to disclose a $28,000 loan to help buy it. Mr. Kerik is now facing a 16-count federal indictment including allegations that a construction company with suspected organized crime ties paid for the renovations hoping that Mr. Kerik would help it obtain a city license. The indictment also charges that Mr. Kerik failed to disclose a $250,000 loan financed by an unnamed Israeli businessman and did not report as income more than $200,000 in rent paid by a developer on an Upper East Side luxury apartment.

Those actions show a blatant disregard for the principle that public office is a service and that officials must be held to a higher standard of responsibility and conduct. The venal abuse of office for personal enrichment is unfortunately not that uncommon in our times. This is especially true under the Bush Administration, where high officials from Treasury officials to the World Bank President have been ousted upon disclosure of their illegal self dealing. We must also keep in mind that President Bush nominated Kerik for the position of head of the Department of Homeland Security. His candidacy was withdrawn only after his corrupt dealings came to light and were made embarrassingly public.

Although lamentably too common, such conduct is not something to which we should aspire in the selection of public servants in high office. As someone mentored by the aspiring Presidential candidate Giuliani, we have to ask whether Rudy deliberately chose someone of such low character to mentor and whether Kerik’s conduct is a reflection of the standards of the candidate himself. Alternatively, we should question whether Giuliani is simply a lousy judge of character and his mechanisms for selecting his “team” are so flawed that they cannot ferret out the corrupt and the incompetent. In either case, Giuliani presents the clear prospect of following in the footsteps of George W. Bush. As the campaign manager for Presidential candidate John McCain (a candidate with credibility problems of his own) stated: “A president’s judgment matters, and Rudy Giuliani has repeatedly placed personal loyalty over regard for the facts.”

Giuliani rides a wave of popularity based upon an almost mythical public image of leadership following the Twin Towers disaster of September 11 in the city he governed. Yet the image is more myth than reality. Although it is true that Giuliani took charge immediately after the attack and helped to coordinate rescue operations, his role looked larger than life more because of its contrast with the ineptitude of President Bush than because of any extraordinary action of Giuliani himself. Following the disaster, history shows that more than 5 years later the huge amounts of charitable funds raised for the benefit of victims have still not reached the intended recipients, much having been diverted by opportunistic public and private schemers. The proposed memorial to those who died in the attack and the rescuers who gave their lives attempting to help survivors is still unfinished.

How great, then, are the actual talents of Presidential candidate Giuliani? Are we being fed a candidate of substance, of another figure that is essentially no more competent that Bush and similarly surrounded and supported by hype, cronies, incompetent loyalists and “spinmeisters?” Will the public again fall for the GOP formula that amounts to MOS?

Politics Over Principle - The Shame of Democrats

Politics Over Principle

The news that two Senators on the Judiciary Committee have now agreed to support the nomination of Judge Michael B. Mukasey as the next US Attorney General is a clear example of placing politics over principle. The controversy surrounding the nomination, and the issue that has caused a number of Democratic Senators to oppose the nomination, has been the unwillingness of the nominee to state unequivocally whether the “waterboarding” technique of “aggressive” interrogation constitutes “torture” that is unacceptable under the laws of this country as well as international law. The technique is intended to coerce the prisoner to reveal information through the experience of extreme pain and psychological pressure – the sense of death by drowning. There is no evidence of any beneficial use of the procedure for any therapeutic purpose.

It appears that all GOP senators are in support of the Attorney General nominee because he was put forward by the President, regardless of his qualifications to hold the position as top law enforcement official in the United States. One has to wonder whether a candidate like Josef Mengele would have been an acceptable nominee to these senators if President Bush had put such a person forward. Party loyalty and politics seem more important that any moral standards.

The argument put forward by Bush, that the nominee has not been “briefed” on the use of his Administration’s interrogation techniques is a senseless and facile one. In the first place, the Administration reuses to brief ANYONE on the techniques it uses. Second, the nominee is in a position to respond to the question whether he views waterboarding as torture precisely because he has not been briefed on specific instances. Had he the awareness of specific cases that might come before him, he would be obliged to decline comment. But the current question is asked in general and as a matter of moral judgment and principle in order to gauge his character and philosophy. These are legitimate questions to assess the fitness of a person to hold such an important position.

Does placing a plastic bag over a prisoner’s head and tightening it until the prisoner passes out from asphyxiation rise to the level of torture? How about use of the ancient “dunking” chair process used against reputed “witches” to force them to confess their possession by evil spirits – not entirely dissimilar to waterboarding – as a form of torture? How about electrode shocks, attack dogs, simulated execution by injection of solutions that the prisoner believes are lethal? If the nominee has an internal moral compass and a line that he draws regarding what he deems inhumane treatment, the Judiciary Committee is entitled to probe for an understanding of his character and philosophy before recommending him to the full Senate for confirmation.

That these Democratic senators have shirked their responsibility to press the nominee to disclose his beliefs and moral standards is lamentable. Unfortunately, in the US today we cannot rely upon elected officials to take a stand on principle rather than bow to political pressure. These days, when our elected representatives do take a stand and insist upon doing something because it is “right,” [based upon internationally accepted principles of human rights and decency] rather than because it is convenient or popular, it seems to be the exception rather than the rule.

“None So Blind As He Who Will Not See”

President George W. Bush, in one of his typically occluded public observations, announced that he sees “progress” in Iraq as the Iraqi people are “slowly but surely” reclaiming a “normal” society. He claims credit for this progress as a result of his troop buildup. Although even field commanders in Iraq have deemed the “surge” to be an abject failure in terms of its intended purpose, Bush still attempts to spin progress out of failure. Relying consistently upon the old P. T. Barnum maxim – “Nobody ever went broke by underestimating the intelligence of the American public” – Bush once again places his confidence in the stupidity and ignorance of the American populace. What remains unclear is whether Bush has become so accustomed to and comfortable in his lying mode that he cannot discern the truth from falsehood and fiction. Any objective view of the status of the populace and conditions in Iraq would lead inexorably to the conclusion that the state of Iraqi society is far from “normal” in any sense of that word.

Bush’s assertion that Iraqi society is slowly normalizing ignores that essentially human trait and instinct of adaptation. History has shown us that humans can adapt to very hostile and adverse conditions when necessity imposes those conditions. It is a survival instinct and not optimization as Bush would have us believe. The Japanese Americans adapted to the internment camps that they were forced to live in during World War II. Their conditions were adverse and they were not in any sense living in a “normal” society. Yet they adapted to daily life in imprisonment, carrying on such educational, social and recreational activities as they could under circumstances that violated international human rights precepts and the Constitution of the United States.

To contend that Iraqi society is normalizing is about as valid as calling Jewish society in the Nazi concentration camps or the daily life in Mogadishu or Darfur to be “normalized.” It is only when you adopt a very distorted and self-serving definition of normal, rather than an objective and honest definition, that you could begin to describe Iraqi society as returning to “normalcy.” The infrastructure of the country remains in a shambles, despite billions of dollars spent to allegedly rebuild. Basic services of water, power, education, health and public safety are unreliable, if available at all, in many areas. The country is in the throes of a civil war with tribal and ethnic factions fighting for control and territory.

Bush’s current claim, of course, ignores the fact that “normal” - status quo ante -must be compared to life under the dictator Saddam Hussein. Bush found that governance so abhorrent that he duped the US Congress into authorizing his violation of international law to unilaterally invade Iraq and install a US occupation force in Iraq. Any “progress” would have to be measured by whether the condition of the Iraqi people is improved over the conditions under which they lived under the prior regime. Even a blind man who can at least listen to the outcries from the Iraqi people for the US to get out of their country and the daily explosions from bombing of innocent civilians and periodic unprovoked slaughter of Iraqi civilians by US mercenary squads would have to concede that the situation is not better than before the US arrived. George W. Bush seems to be worst than blind. “There is none so blind as he who will not see.”

Attention: This just in…….. Pentagon numbers say we are winning in Iraq!

Attention: This just in…….. The numbers say we are winning in Iraq!

Recent Bush Government reports from the Pentagon through Associated Press [So they must be reliable, right?] show that the US military losses [deaths only - injuries, maiming and psychological damage don't count] so far this year are only 853. In contrast, the government reports that about 875 Iraqi civilians have been killed during just the month of October. We know that around 10-15% of the Iraqi civilians killed are the work of the mercenary Blackwater brigades, so the US military cannot really take full credit for the slaughter of Iraqi civilians. Nevertheless, when added to the slaughter of over 1000 Iraqis in September, the statistics show that the US is killing more Iraqis every month than American troops the Iraqi “enemy” has killed in almost a year. Therefore, we must be “winning” in the eyes of the Bush Government. No less than Robert Gates declares that the war effort is succeeding.

This report does not claim to be a complete body count. For example, many of the civilian women and children that our troops kill in Iraq are not counted (or at least they are not credited as whole number kills – a three year old might only be worth a credit of a ¼ kill by Pentagon statisticians). So the advantage of slaughter for our side is even greater. Of course, the Pentagon also does not include the deaths of employees of private contractors who supply the troops as that would unnecessarily inflate our statistical losses and unfairly suggest that the human cost of the war is greater than the Bush Administration is justified. They are not really soldiers, after all.

At the current rate of US military effectiveness, we are able to destroy the population of several Iraqi villages each year. The Bush Administration plan to continue the war effort for the next 20 years or more should enable the US military to decimate the Iraqi population. At the very least, the Iraqi civilian population will be driven into the major population centers. And military experts indicate that when grouped together in close quarters it is easier to slaughter more civilians with a single offensive strike. This not only increases our body count, but conserves ammunition.

Unless the noisome backlash of protests from some American activist groups who are still clinging to some “antiquated” notions of "morality" and "international standards of human rights" are able to derail the Bush Administration plans, the US should be able to succeed in annihilating or severely weakening the Iraqi population in the next two decades. That would enable the US government to step in and seize the Iraqi petroleum resources to feed the unabated demand for oil in the US. "The public relations side of things do present some challenges," say Pentagon officials. There is still some grumbling about whether it is appropriate to unilaterally invade a sovereign country and destroy its infrastructure and population. To date, however, no such moralistic or diplomatic factions have been very successful in interrupting the military mission.

PS - Who's next?

There is considerable speculation about who the next nominee for US Attorney General might be. Among the candidates touted, the name of Larry Johnson seems to surface repeatedly. A former Justice Official in the Bush Administration, Johnson now serves as General counsel for Pepsico. Johnson also happens to be Afro-American.

While Johnson is undoubtedly talented, it is to be hoped that he is also smart enough to retain a sense of pride and self preservation. It may be that this would be his only opportunity to hold the top law enforcement position in the United States, if Bush were to offer the appointment. Yet if ethnicity and history mean anything to Johnson, much less personal integrity, he would decline consideration. To take on the top position in a seriously dysfunctional Justice Department that has been subjugated to the Bush White House and thereby lost all credibility and respect would be a thankless and largely unproductive stint. To take on the position as first Black Attorney General after Alberto Gonzalez has disgraced his heritage by abject failure and dereliction of duty as the first Hispanic Attorney General would be a grave tactical error.

Johnson would be remembered as the guy brought in during the lame duck portion of the GW Bush presidency to "clean up" after the mess that an incompetent and morally compromised Gonzalez had made. He would not likely be permitted to truly correct the mistakes made during the Gonzalez tenure because the White House would not allow it. In short, no real good could come of such an appointment. Yet men have been known to act against self interest and stoop to useless acts when presented with appeals to their vanity intead of their intellect and good character.

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?