"As the result of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, there are no Constitutional limits on the power of the U.S. Presidency."
It's a story line that would make Sinclair Lewis proud with logic so twisted logic that it would make even Lewis Carroll blush.
First the he gets caught violating his oath of office and breaking his solemn promise to defend the laws and constitution of the United States. Immediately he denies the whole thing. But two days later admits that he's done it, but not very often, and he then defiantly boasts that he will do it again, reasoning that he has an obligation to protect us all and, besides, the law is stupid.
But in the following weeks the usually flaccid media reports that there has been massive spying on Americans ... millions of phone conversations and e-mails, and not at all limited to a few "terrorist suspects." And it emerges that it would have been remarkably simple to just comply with the law that he's broken and that he'd almost never have been denied the legal authority to do as he wants.
So why pointlessly break a law that's easy to follow and really doesn't get in your way at all? And why do it on such a massive scale, not just an accidental transgression her or there? The vice president knows the true objective: to restore presidential power to pre-Nixon levels.
But then, for a whimsical Alice in Wonderland style twist, yesterday the resources of our government of the people were deployed to launch a criminal inquiry to determine who leaked the truth in the first place.
Ah, but that's just the cliffhanger ending. In the distance you can hear talk of "impeachable offences ..."
Cheney and His Patsy, Bush, Face Impeachment Furor
-- Mathba
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Friday, December 30, 2005
Slash and Burn
"CRAWFORD, Tex., Dec. 30 -- On most of the 365 days he has enjoyed at his secluded ranch here, President Bush's idea of paradise is to hop in his white Ford pickup truck in jeans and work boots, drive to a stand of cedars, and whack the trees to the ground.
If the soil is moist enough, he will light a match and burn the wood. If it is parched, as it is across Texas now, the wood will sit in piles scattered over the 1,600-acre spread until it is safe for a ranch hand to torch -- or until the president can come home and do the honors himself."
"Recreational," "Therapeutic," say his supporters. "Staged," "Distracted," say his detractors.
Still, the image of George W. Bush forcefully and violently having his way--albeit with sagebrush--and especially when there's no real need to do it, well that picture is truly worth a thousand words.
Down on the Ranch, President Wages War on the Underbrush -- Washington Post
If the soil is moist enough, he will light a match and burn the wood. If it is parched, as it is across Texas now, the wood will sit in piles scattered over the 1,600-acre spread until it is safe for a ranch hand to torch -- or until the president can come home and do the honors himself."
"Recreational," "Therapeutic," say his supporters. "Staged," "Distracted," say his detractors.
Still, the image of George W. Bush forcefully and violently having his way--albeit with sagebrush--and especially when there's no real need to do it, well that picture is truly worth a thousand words.
Down on the Ranch, President Wages War on the Underbrush -- Washington Post
Thursday, December 29, 2005
This explains quite a lot: Mutants Rule the Earth
Strom Thurmond must be spinning in his grave. And all of his racist ilk ought to be re-thinking a few things.
Meanwhile, Eldridge Cleaver must be dancing in his grave. And the Black Panthers (the ones who haven't been killed, that is) are finally vindicated.
It turns our that it's normal to be black. In fact, white folks are really just genetic mutants. Scientists have discovered the precise genetic mutation that caused normal brown human skin to turn white.
Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin - Washington Post
Meanwhile, Eldridge Cleaver must be dancing in his grave. And the Black Panthers (the ones who haven't been killed, that is) are finally vindicated.
It turns our that it's normal to be black. In fact, white folks are really just genetic mutants. Scientists have discovered the precise genetic mutation that caused normal brown human skin to turn white.
Scientists Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin - Washington Post
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
The Unintended Consequences of Breaking the Law
Yow! Talk about unintended consequences!
Did President Bush anticipate this on that Saturday morning when he strutted up to the podium and defiantly announced that he ordered our government to spy on its own citizens and said that he didn't care if it was against law and would keep doing it?
Or maybe he hoped that a couple of weeks of terror talk would convince even defense attorneys that we need to trust Bush in his War on Terror.
No such luck. Lawyers for defendants in terrorism cases all across the nation are preparing legal challenges to illegal wiretaps ordered by George W. Bush.
Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts - New York Times
Did President Bush anticipate this on that Saturday morning when he strutted up to the podium and defiantly announced that he ordered our government to spy on its own citizens and said that he didn't care if it was against law and would keep doing it?
Or maybe he hoped that a couple of weeks of terror talk would convince even defense attorneys that we need to trust Bush in his War on Terror.
No such luck. Lawyers for defendants in terrorism cases all across the nation are preparing legal challenges to illegal wiretaps ordered by George W. Bush.
Defense Lawyers in Terror Cases Plan Challenges Over Spy Efforts - New York Times
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
It's not an increase therefore it must be a withdrawal
Headline news! Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!.
After playing word games for a couple of days, suddenly the day before Christmas Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced good news. "Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!"
In typical Rumsfeldian fashion, though, it's hard to tell what's really going on.
The total number of US troops in Iraq will be reduced by 7,000--from the current 160,000 to 153,000--but half of those will be moved just across the border to Kuwait and the rest won't be sent home but rather will be kept close by in case they are needed on short notice. Still, that's 7,000 moved out of Iraq. Get it? Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!
And, somehow or another, 7,000 troops who had been told they would soon be going to Iraq will now stay in the US. For them and their families this must seem like Troop Withdrawals in Iraq! (Coincidentally, guess which happy families will be featured over and over again on the Fox News shows.)
Still it's all a bit confusing because, no matter how you cut it, even after all the movement to and fro there will still be 15,000 more US troops in Iraq than the 138,000 that were there a year ago. But that's due, we're told, to the build-up of US troops before the Iraq elections (two, three, more of them) which were supposed to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people followed by Troop Withdrawals in Iraq! but instead seem to have fueled even more violence requiring the continued presence of US troops in iraq.
Is there a pattern here? First violence increases in Iraq. Then we send in more US troops to restore order. The increased presence of US troops leads to even more violence which, of course, requires even more US troops.
US General Peter Pace seems to get the picture. Two days after Rumsfeld announced Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!, General Pace said that there really are no firm plans to withdraw troops. In fact, just the opposite, "the number of US troops in Iraq could increase not decrease," because "the enemy has a vote in this, and if they were to cause some kind of problems that required more troops, then we would do exactly what we've done in the past, which is give the commanders on the ground what they need. And in that case, you could see troop level go up."
Of course the "Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!" headline was never retracted.
Iraq Contingent May Grow if Attacks Persist - LA Times
After playing word games for a couple of days, suddenly the day before Christmas Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced good news. "Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!"
In typical Rumsfeldian fashion, though, it's hard to tell what's really going on.
The total number of US troops in Iraq will be reduced by 7,000--from the current 160,000 to 153,000--but half of those will be moved just across the border to Kuwait and the rest won't be sent home but rather will be kept close by in case they are needed on short notice. Still, that's 7,000 moved out of Iraq. Get it? Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!
And, somehow or another, 7,000 troops who had been told they would soon be going to Iraq will now stay in the US. For them and their families this must seem like Troop Withdrawals in Iraq! (Coincidentally, guess which happy families will be featured over and over again on the Fox News shows.)
Still it's all a bit confusing because, no matter how you cut it, even after all the movement to and fro there will still be 15,000 more US troops in Iraq than the 138,000 that were there a year ago. But that's due, we're told, to the build-up of US troops before the Iraq elections (two, three, more of them) which were supposed to bring democracy and freedom to the Iraqi people followed by Troop Withdrawals in Iraq! but instead seem to have fueled even more violence requiring the continued presence of US troops in iraq.
Is there a pattern here? First violence increases in Iraq. Then we send in more US troops to restore order. The increased presence of US troops leads to even more violence which, of course, requires even more US troops.
US General Peter Pace seems to get the picture. Two days after Rumsfeld announced Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!, General Pace said that there really are no firm plans to withdraw troops. In fact, just the opposite, "the number of US troops in Iraq could increase not decrease," because "the enemy has a vote in this, and if they were to cause some kind of problems that required more troops, then we would do exactly what we've done in the past, which is give the commanders on the ground what they need. And in that case, you could see troop level go up."
Of course the "Troop Withdrawals in Iraq!" headline was never retracted.
Iraq Contingent May Grow if Attacks Persist - LA Times
Monday, December 26, 2005
He said what?
Ten days ago we first learned that George W. Bush broke the law by ordering spying on American citizens. He hasn't denied it, in fact he's admitted that he knows he's breaking the law and plans to continue doing it.
But instead of the fact that the President of the United States of America is breaking the law, the focus remains on whether or not he has a good reason to break the law.
Colin Powell said that the day that he went before the United Nations with a cartoon fantasy story about mobile biological labs was the low point in his career. His failure that day was a major factor in America marching off to war in search of a mirage. Yesterday he proved that he hasn't learned from the experience--and neither has the media.
Both of the following lead sentences are accurate:
What he really said is:
Powell Backs Bush on Domestic Spying - Voice of America, 12/26/05
Powell Speaks Out on Domestic Spy Program - New York Times
But instead of the fact that the President of the United States of America is breaking the law, the focus remains on whether or not he has a good reason to break the law.
Colin Powell said that the day that he went before the United Nations with a cartoon fantasy story about mobile biological labs was the low point in his career. His failure that day was a major factor in America marching off to war in search of a mirage. Yesterday he proved that he hasn't learned from the experience--and neither has the media.
Both of the following lead sentences are accurate:
"Former Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said on Sunday that it would not have been "that hard" for President Bush to obtain warrants for eavesdropping on domestic telephone and Internet activity, but that he saw "nothing wrong" with the decision not to do so."But the headlines all across the world are less subtle: "Powell Sees Nothing Wrong ... Backs Domestic Spying ... Eavesdropping Is Okay"
"Former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell says President Bush was right in authorizing a domestic spying program."
What he really said is:
1) the Bush administration obviously chose to break the law,
2) it was pretty stupid to break the law because it's so easy to get a warrant to what they wanted to do,
3) the Bush Administration didn't consult him as Secretary of State, but if they had he'd have supported domestic spying and told them to follow the law.
Powell Backs Bush on Domestic Spying - Voice of America, 12/26/05
Powell Speaks Out on Domestic Spy Program - New York Times
Sunday, December 25, 2005
Christmas Story
Timmy was particularly pleased with the reaction when they opened the Christmas present he'd brought.
Enter Worthington, Minnesota, a town of 11,000 out on the western prairie where the meat packing plants offer low-paying and high-risk jobs that attract immigrant workers. It's quite the symbiotic relationship. The immigrant workers are willing to do the jobs that no one else will take for the wages the packing houses pay and then they spend most of their earnings right there in town. Of course some of the immigrant workers have to use phony IDs to get the jobs. Most everyone--the packing houses, the authorities, and the local merchants--knows this. But here in America, where we love our freedom (especially when it's so lucrative), don't ask don't tell seems like the best policy.
But then Chief of Police made the mistake of mentioning that the fake IDs become a real bother when his officers pull over an immigrant worker for a routine traffic stop.
Word flashed to the Office of the Governor who immediately saw the opportunity. Stowing away for the moment his Christian beliefs and what Jesus said about the poor and caring for your neighbor, Timmy the Boy Governor brought the full weight of his office to bear, ordering a study, and then releasing a scathing report saying that there could be more than 80,000 illegals in Minnesota and that they cost Minnesotans upwards of $175 million a year (not quite half of what Timmy the Boy Governor's snafu with the cigarette tax will cost, but who's counting).
Never mind that the report has since been discredited by most everyone, even the experts mis-quoted in it. Never mind that Timmy the Boy Governor himself has since disclaimed most of his own report and now says that he realizes that immigrant workers contribute far more to the State's economy than they cost.
That was never the point.
The point was to feed the ugliest instincts among us and to remind citizens that things could always get worse and so you'd better keep your nose to the wheel and vote for conservative ideologues because they'll watch out for that guy over there who just might be out to steal your stuff.
Minnesotans can do better than this.
One Town's Concern - Star Tribune
"Your logic tells you, all right, these people, they only come here for the money. They speak Spanish. They're used to the desert and hot weather. What are they doing in Minnesota? And the answer is the fact that we give everything away."So much for Minnesota Nice. And to hell with the spirit of Christmas. Just the way Timmy the Boy Governor calculated they'd respond when he stirred up fears and hatred for his own political ends. Lagging in the polls and on the verge of a spectacular court loss in his bid to convince ordinary citizens that a "health impact fee" is not a tax, Timmy needed something big to shore up his anti-urban "I've got mine, up yours" conservative base.
Enter Worthington, Minnesota, a town of 11,000 out on the western prairie where the meat packing plants offer low-paying and high-risk jobs that attract immigrant workers. It's quite the symbiotic relationship. The immigrant workers are willing to do the jobs that no one else will take for the wages the packing houses pay and then they spend most of their earnings right there in town. Of course some of the immigrant workers have to use phony IDs to get the jobs. Most everyone--the packing houses, the authorities, and the local merchants--knows this. But here in America, where we love our freedom (especially when it's so lucrative), don't ask don't tell seems like the best policy.
But then Chief of Police made the mistake of mentioning that the fake IDs become a real bother when his officers pull over an immigrant worker for a routine traffic stop.
Word flashed to the Office of the Governor who immediately saw the opportunity. Stowing away for the moment his Christian beliefs and what Jesus said about the poor and caring for your neighbor, Timmy the Boy Governor brought the full weight of his office to bear, ordering a study, and then releasing a scathing report saying that there could be more than 80,000 illegals in Minnesota and that they cost Minnesotans upwards of $175 million a year (not quite half of what Timmy the Boy Governor's snafu with the cigarette tax will cost, but who's counting).
Never mind that the report has since been discredited by most everyone, even the experts mis-quoted in it. Never mind that Timmy the Boy Governor himself has since disclaimed most of his own report and now says that he realizes that immigrant workers contribute far more to the State's economy than they cost.
That was never the point.
The point was to feed the ugliest instincts among us and to remind citizens that things could always get worse and so you'd better keep your nose to the wheel and vote for conservative ideologues because they'll watch out for that guy over there who just might be out to steal your stuff.
Minnesotans can do better than this.
One Town's Concern - Star Tribune
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Success: American Style Democracy Flowers in Iraq
The election is too close to call, the government says, it's going to take a while to count all of the votes. Everyone should just settle down and be patient. Trust the process, they say.
But the process doesn't seem to be working. There are rumors of ballot fraud and all sorts of shenanigans at the polls. Next thing you know people are demonstrating in the streets demanding a fair count.
Finally the courts step in and rule that the members of one party will not be seated, no matter what the final outcome of the ballot count.
It was the Democrats in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Now it's another Anti-Bush group, the Sunni Arabs. Truly we've succeeded in bringing American style democracy to the region.
Elsewhere in Iraq, nine civilians including children were killed when a suicide bomber detonated her explosives inside a market and an American soldier died when a roadside bomb exploded under the truck in which he was riding.
Ex-Baathists Banned From Parliament - Kansas City Star
But the process doesn't seem to be working. There are rumors of ballot fraud and all sorts of shenanigans at the polls. Next thing you know people are demonstrating in the streets demanding a fair count.
Finally the courts step in and rule that the members of one party will not be seated, no matter what the final outcome of the ballot count.
It was the Democrats in Florida in 2000 and in Ohio in 2004. Now it's another Anti-Bush group, the Sunni Arabs. Truly we've succeeded in bringing American style democracy to the region.
Elsewhere in Iraq, nine civilians including children were killed when a suicide bomber detonated her explosives inside a market and an American soldier died when a roadside bomb exploded under the truck in which he was riding.
Ex-Baathists Banned From Parliament - Kansas City Star
Friday, December 23, 2005
You don't know what you've got till it's gone
As George W. Bush continues to attack American citizens in his war on terror, he's said that Congress authorized him to use "all necessary power" to get the terrorists.
Except that's a lie.
Proof?
So which is it, Mr. President?
Do you really believe that Congress meant to give you the power to attack Americans in your war on terror?
If so, why did you bother to specifically demand that power?
And did you then forget that Congress then specifically told you no?
Or is your war on terror so important that you are above the law?
Oh, wait, you already made that argument, didn't you?
Help us understand, won't you, why we should believe that you're defending democracy by placing yourself above the laws that were created by the people.
Power We Didn't Grant - Washington Post
Except that's a lie.
Proof?
In the days after 9/11 Congress rushed to give the President the authority to pursue those who had attacked America, the initial step in what Bush calls his "war on terror."
An hour before Congress authorized the use of force against al Qaeda demanded that the wording be changed to allow him to use force "...in the United States and against those nations..." that had attacked America.
Congress wisely refused and instead authorized the President to use, "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons [the president] determines planned, authorized, committed or aided [in the attacks of Sept. 11].
So which is it, Mr. President?
Do you really believe that Congress meant to give you the power to attack Americans in your war on terror?
If so, why did you bother to specifically demand that power?
And did you then forget that Congress then specifically told you no?
Or is your war on terror so important that you are above the law?
Oh, wait, you already made that argument, didn't you?
Help us understand, won't you, why we should believe that you're defending democracy by placing yourself above the laws that were created by the people.
Power We Didn't Grant - Washington Post
Sunday, February 20, 2005
Shoooting the messenger
The ugly truth is this: U.S. forces are targeting journalists. What is more, there is a common thread: The journalists killed by U.S. forces have been mostly Arabs who were reporting on places or incidents that the U.S. does not have want the world to see: military vehicles in flames, helicopters shot down, fierce resistance against the U.S. invaders, and civilian deaths.
Of course, the "embedded" U.S. media has scarcely covered this story.
Many of the attacks have been spectacular: launching missiles on a photographer, a tank attack on the Palestine Hotel where more than 100 "non-embed" journalists maintained their offices. Yet the Pentagon has not disciplined a single soldier for the killing of a journalist in Iraq. Most of the incidents have been labeled "self-defense" or "mistakes" and some have been classified as "justified," like the killing of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana who was shot near Abu Ghraib prison when soldiers said his camera (a shoe-box sized rectangular object) mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (a four foot long pole-shaped object).
In some cases the U.S. has admitted targeting journalists. Reuters freelancer Dhia Najim was killed by U.S. fire while filming resistance fighters in November 2004. "We did kill him," an unnamed military official told the New York Times. "He was out with the bad guys. He was there with them, they attacked, and we fired back and hit him."
Meanwhile, here at home, the White House embeds fake journalists across the country and right-wing bloggers drive Eason Jordan, one of the most powerful executives in the cable news business, from his job for merely suggesting that there's a problem in Iraq.
The Nation - Shooting the Messenger
Of course, the "embedded" U.S. media has scarcely covered this story.
Many of the attacks have been spectacular: launching missiles on a photographer, a tank attack on the Palestine Hotel where more than 100 "non-embed" journalists maintained their offices. Yet the Pentagon has not disciplined a single soldier for the killing of a journalist in Iraq. Most of the incidents have been labeled "self-defense" or "mistakes" and some have been classified as "justified," like the killing of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana who was shot near Abu Ghraib prison when soldiers said his camera (a shoe-box sized rectangular object) mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (a four foot long pole-shaped object).
In some cases the U.S. has admitted targeting journalists. Reuters freelancer Dhia Najim was killed by U.S. fire while filming resistance fighters in November 2004. "We did kill him," an unnamed military official told the New York Times. "He was out with the bad guys. He was there with them, they attacked, and we fired back and hit him."
Meanwhile, here at home, the White House embeds fake journalists across the country and right-wing bloggers drive Eason Jordan, one of the most powerful executives in the cable news business, from his job for merely suggesting that there's a problem in Iraq.
The Nation - Shooting the Messenger
Saturday, February 19, 2005
Support our Mercenaries: the disappearing coalition
These days George W. Bush talks about a "multi-national force" doing his bidding in Iraq. That's a far cry from the days when he boasted that "more than fifty nations have joined the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Today, a public listing is nowhere to be found.
"I expect to see the coalition countries begin paring down their forces as they complete their contributions," said Donald Rumsfeld. Besides, the Bush administration wants to avoid identifying countries that don't want to make their contributions known to the world. Pentagon officials say it's up to each country to decide what to say publicly.
Let's see, according to Rumsfeld "coalition countries" are pulling out their troops as they complete their contributions, but the War on Iraq is not over, evidenced by the fact that countries continue to secretly pay to have U.S. soldiers fight and kill Iraqis.
Somehow, it's just fine, in fact it's "expected," that other countries are bringing home their troops, but it's impossible to bring U.S. troops home ... in fact it's "irresponsible," to even discuss U.S. troop withdrawal because merely thinking about the timing would give the Iraqi loyalists a reason to fight on. And, all the while, the Bush administration will eagerly accept secret contributions from other countries to pay U.S. troops to continue kill Iraqi citizens.
So, while Donald Rumsfeld converts the U.S. military into a dangerous gang of paid mercenaries, Red America, without a hint of irony, will continue to slap "support our troops" stickers on their Suburbans.
Associated Press - Bush's Iraq Coalition Shrinking
"I expect to see the coalition countries begin paring down their forces as they complete their contributions," said Donald Rumsfeld. Besides, the Bush administration wants to avoid identifying countries that don't want to make their contributions known to the world. Pentagon officials say it's up to each country to decide what to say publicly.
Let's see, according to Rumsfeld "coalition countries" are pulling out their troops as they complete their contributions, but the War on Iraq is not over, evidenced by the fact that countries continue to secretly pay to have U.S. soldiers fight and kill Iraqis.
Somehow, it's just fine, in fact it's "expected," that other countries are bringing home their troops, but it's impossible to bring U.S. troops home ... in fact it's "irresponsible," to even discuss U.S. troop withdrawal because merely thinking about the timing would give the Iraqi loyalists a reason to fight on. And, all the while, the Bush administration will eagerly accept secret contributions from other countries to pay U.S. troops to continue kill Iraqi citizens.
So, while Donald Rumsfeld converts the U.S. military into a dangerous gang of paid mercenaries, Red America, without a hint of irony, will continue to slap "support our troops" stickers on their Suburbans.
Associated Press - Bush's Iraq Coalition Shrinking
Friday, February 18, 2005
On becoming a "Good American"
Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia is convinced that Iran has no intention to produce nuclear weapons. "The latest activities of the Iranian side are convincing Russia that Iran really has no intention of producing nuclear weapons."
So Russia plans to continue working with Iran and its neighbors to arrive at a peaceful solution in the Middle East. "That means we will continue our cooperation with Iran in all spheres, including the nuclear energy sphere," said Putin, announcing that he is preparing to visit Iran, "I received the Iranian leadership's invitation to visit your country and we are preparing for this visit."
Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues his war in the Middle East, threatening any who oppose his regime. Yesterday he dramatically broadened the criteria he will use to decide which sovereign nations to invade and occupy, now reserving the right to attack any nation where he might find "terrorists who target innocent civilians and continue to seek weapons of mass murder."
For a guy who likes to think of himself as plain-spoken and a straight-shooter, he sure raises a lot of questions with ambiguous pronouncements like that.
Was he really talking about Syria or Iran? Perhaps both? Does he mean that you need to both target civilians and seek weapons, or is one or the other enough? How does he reconcile the documented U.S. targeting of Iraqi and Afghani civilian parties using the latest high-tech robot drones? Why is he changing the terminology to "weapons of mass murder" instead of "destruction?" Does he really believe that the world will soon forget that he lied about his reason for invading Iraq when claimed that he had proof that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction?"
In the aftermath of World War II Americans eagerly blamed the German people for the crimes committed in their names by the Nazi regime. It wasn't so much what the individual German citizen had done themselves, rather we held individuals accountable for what they had allowed to be done. Soon the term "Good German" became an epithet used to deride those who turn a blind eye to horrors being committed in their name.
By that same logic, the world must be wondering what it means to be a "Good American."
MOSNEWS (Russia) - Russia Convinced that Iran Will Not Produce Nuclear Weapons
So Russia plans to continue working with Iran and its neighbors to arrive at a peaceful solution in the Middle East. "That means we will continue our cooperation with Iran in all spheres, including the nuclear energy sphere," said Putin, announcing that he is preparing to visit Iran, "I received the Iranian leadership's invitation to visit your country and we are preparing for this visit."
Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues his war in the Middle East, threatening any who oppose his regime. Yesterday he dramatically broadened the criteria he will use to decide which sovereign nations to invade and occupy, now reserving the right to attack any nation where he might find "terrorists who target innocent civilians and continue to seek weapons of mass murder."
For a guy who likes to think of himself as plain-spoken and a straight-shooter, he sure raises a lot of questions with ambiguous pronouncements like that.
Was he really talking about Syria or Iran? Perhaps both? Does he mean that you need to both target civilians and seek weapons, or is one or the other enough? How does he reconcile the documented U.S. targeting of Iraqi and Afghani civilian parties using the latest high-tech robot drones? Why is he changing the terminology to "weapons of mass murder" instead of "destruction?" Does he really believe that the world will soon forget that he lied about his reason for invading Iraq when claimed that he had proof that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction?"
In the aftermath of World War II Americans eagerly blamed the German people for the crimes committed in their names by the Nazi regime. It wasn't so much what the individual German citizen had done themselves, rather we held individuals accountable for what they had allowed to be done. Soon the term "Good German" became an epithet used to deride those who turn a blind eye to horrors being committed in their name.
By that same logic, the world must be wondering what it means to be a "Good American."
MOSNEWS (Russia) - Russia Convinced that Iran Will Not Produce Nuclear Weapons
Thursday, February 17, 2005
The Governor's Indian Drug Mules
"Let's get the Indians to illegally import drugs and then sell them here."
That's the latest suggestion from Timmy the Boy Governor. You may remember that, in knowing violation of Federal law, Governor Tim Pawlenty set up state sponsored Web sites to help Minnesotans fill their prescriptions in Canada at greatly reduced prices. Indeed, he even fixed it so that state employees don't even have a co-pay if they use the Canadian pharmacies.
But now it looks like the Feds are going to shut down Timmy's bootleg sites.
His answer: Let's get the Indians to run drugs from Canada for us. Some of their reservations straddle the border. They're "sovereign nations" which always slows down the Feds. And they probably know some of their own kind in Canada who would be willing to help.
This from the man who, at the same time, has demanded that unless the Indian casinos pay a confiscatory new state tax he will open a state sponsored Las Vegas run casino in the Twin Cities and bankrupt them.
This from the law and order Republican who insists we are a nation of laws not of men.
This from the moral man, and Evangelical Christian who ... well, come to think of it, in today's American it is all pretty consistent, isn't it?
Star Tribune (MN) - Pawlenty floats drug deal with Indians
That's the latest suggestion from Timmy the Boy Governor. You may remember that, in knowing violation of Federal law, Governor Tim Pawlenty set up state sponsored Web sites to help Minnesotans fill their prescriptions in Canada at greatly reduced prices. Indeed, he even fixed it so that state employees don't even have a co-pay if they use the Canadian pharmacies.
But now it looks like the Feds are going to shut down Timmy's bootleg sites.
His answer: Let's get the Indians to run drugs from Canada for us. Some of their reservations straddle the border. They're "sovereign nations" which always slows down the Feds. And they probably know some of their own kind in Canada who would be willing to help.
This from the man who, at the same time, has demanded that unless the Indian casinos pay a confiscatory new state tax he will open a state sponsored Las Vegas run casino in the Twin Cities and bankrupt them.
This from the law and order Republican who insists we are a nation of laws not of men.
This from the moral man, and Evangelical Christian who ... well, come to think of it, in today's American it is all pretty consistent, isn't it?
Star Tribune (MN) - Pawlenty floats drug deal with Indians
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
It can happen ... no, it is happening ... here
Using secret evidence that has never been shown to either the defendants or their lawyers, a Federal appeals court ruled that two U.S. citizens should be jailed for having witnessed a crime. What is more, no one will ever see the court's full decision because several pages of it have been blanked out for security reasons having to do with George W. Bush's war on terror.
The case involves reporters Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who may have witnessed a federal crime. The two were working on the story about Robert Novak, the right-wing columnist, who had just publicly revealed the name of a CIA agent, the wife of Joe Wilson who is a vocal critic of Bush's War on Terror. The disclosure by government officials of the identity of a CIA officer is a crime and the reporters have refused to name their sources.
Cooper, of Time magazine, merely wrote an article reporting on Novak's outing of the CIA agent. Even worse, Miller was just working on the story and never published anything. Yet both are facing jail time while Novak is walking about free.
Say that again! How come Novak is out on the streets when there's no question that he's the one who actually revealed the name of the CIA agent? Novak refuses to say whether or not he's even talked to the Federal grand jury, but one explanation is that he's already revealed his sources.
In any case, we'll never know because the Bush administration has drawn the cloak of national security around the case. As reporter Judith Miller noted, she will go to jail, "for a story I didn't write, for reasons a court won't explain."
Meanwhile Bob Novak, who published the CIA officer's name, will remain free to continue to shill for the right-wing.
New York Times - Jailing of Reporters in C.I.A. Leak Case Is Upheld by Judges
The case involves reporters Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who may have witnessed a federal crime. The two were working on the story about Robert Novak, the right-wing columnist, who had just publicly revealed the name of a CIA agent, the wife of Joe Wilson who is a vocal critic of Bush's War on Terror. The disclosure by government officials of the identity of a CIA officer is a crime and the reporters have refused to name their sources.
Cooper, of Time magazine, merely wrote an article reporting on Novak's outing of the CIA agent. Even worse, Miller was just working on the story and never published anything. Yet both are facing jail time while Novak is walking about free.
Say that again! How come Novak is out on the streets when there's no question that he's the one who actually revealed the name of the CIA agent? Novak refuses to say whether or not he's even talked to the Federal grand jury, but one explanation is that he's already revealed his sources.
In any case, we'll never know because the Bush administration has drawn the cloak of national security around the case. As reporter Judith Miller noted, she will go to jail, "for a story I didn't write, for reasons a court won't explain."
Meanwhile Bob Novak, who published the CIA officer's name, will remain free to continue to shill for the right-wing.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945
New York Times - Jailing of Reporters in C.I.A. Leak Case Is Upheld by Judges
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Bush's management team
Talk about a management crisis! The reports were almost laughable, except that lives were being lost. Huge bags of cash "tossed like footballs" out of the back of pick-up trucks to local "contractors." A crony management described as "reminiscent of the Wild West." More than $9 billion just simply gone missing. And yet the lights still don't work at most hours of the day and there's no where near enough clean water.
When faced with such a massive failure of his line managers, how did our first "MBA President" respond?
BBC (UK) - Iraq agency 'run like Wild West'
Kansas City Star - Bush requests addition $82 billion for military operations
When faced with such a massive failure of his line managers, how did our first "MBA President" respond?
1) Identify the man most directly responsible for this fiasco, Proconsul L. Paul Bremer.And it worked. Everyone seemed to forget about Iran's nuclear program and North Korea's threat to use its nuclear weapons. And no one seemed concerned that Lebanon's army was placed on high alert following an assenting led by Syria (where the U.S. continues to outsource the torture of its prisoners.) We felt safe and sound. Our only worry was why those obstructionists in Congress won't let us put some of our money in the stock market.
2) Award him the Presidential the Medal of Freedom.
3) Tell the American people that they need to chip in another $82 billion (which is separate from the $419 billion Defense Department budget, significant portions of which are spent on Iraq and which will push overall U.S. spending for Iraq to well over $300 billion).
4) Remind the American people that the War on Terror must be working because there haven't been any attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.
5) Change the subject and tell Americans that unless they expand the PARTRIOT Act and approve a dozen neo-fascist judges, you won't be able to guarantee their security much longer
6) Remind them that, in any case, you're not sure they'll be able to count on their Social Security benefits in the future.
BBC (UK) - Iraq agency 'run like Wild West'
Kansas City Star - Bush requests addition $82 billion for military operations
Monday, February 14, 2005
Blowing-up the Bush Brain
There he was, George W. Bush preening as his legal toady Alberto Gonzales was being sworn-in as Attorney General of the United States of America. Then, asked to say a few congratulatory words, Bush seized the opportunity to thank his god and then launch into a monologue about the Patriot Act, forcefully making the case that unless Americans immediately surrender the tatters that remain of their civil liberties terrorists would certainly be at the door.
It was a striking performance on many levels. And it made me wonder how such an obviously morally bankrupt ideology could have so completely taken over my country. The reason, I think, is that we've bent over backwards to try to respectfully honor their point of view instead of calling it what it is: a fascist theocracy that has seized control and is ruling America.
One of the biggest challenges we liberals face is the wildly different way in which we approach the world as compared to the way right-wing conservatives (and the right-wing is quite different from the merely conservative) approach anything new or different.
We liberals are curious by nature, always open to new ideas and willing to explore different ways of looking at things. We're not arrogant enough to assume that we know everything and that our way is the one right way to approach a problem or issue. Every day the liberal wakes up wondering what new things he or she might learn today, and convinced that today will be even better than yesterday.
We're comfortable with the idea that we might just learn something new if we listen to and consider the other side's point of view. And there is our greatest weakness.
By contrast, the right-wing conservative is convinced that there is one right answer and that he or she already knows what that answer is. There is no curiosity about the new or different, only plans to defend the already existing truth against foreign un-truths. The right-wing conservative wakes up already knowing everything he or she cares to know and worrying that today might turn out to be worse than yesterday unless he or she takes action to protect what he or she already knows to be the truth.
What is worse, the right-wing conservative sees the liberals' openness as a weakness (remember the "flip-flopper" label?) and an opportunity to go on the attack.
But we liberals have a powerful tool to up-end the right-wing conservative mind: it's our curiosity. Try this next time: ask them, "Why?" Why do you believe that? Why do you think your taxes are too high? Why do you think that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.? Why do you think that poor people are lazy? Why do you think George W. Bush is a paragon of morality?
Then, and this is important, whatever their answer, ask them why they believe that. Soon it will be like one of those old sci-fi movies where the malevolent computer melts down when confronted with questions it cannot answer. Because the fact is very few Americans actually believe the right-wing ideology.
Rockridge Institute - Creating a Progressive Values Movement
It was a striking performance on many levels. And it made me wonder how such an obviously morally bankrupt ideology could have so completely taken over my country. The reason, I think, is that we've bent over backwards to try to respectfully honor their point of view instead of calling it what it is: a fascist theocracy that has seized control and is ruling America.
One of the biggest challenges we liberals face is the wildly different way in which we approach the world as compared to the way right-wing conservatives (and the right-wing is quite different from the merely conservative) approach anything new or different.
We liberals are curious by nature, always open to new ideas and willing to explore different ways of looking at things. We're not arrogant enough to assume that we know everything and that our way is the one right way to approach a problem or issue. Every day the liberal wakes up wondering what new things he or she might learn today, and convinced that today will be even better than yesterday.
We're comfortable with the idea that we might just learn something new if we listen to and consider the other side's point of view. And there is our greatest weakness.
By contrast, the right-wing conservative is convinced that there is one right answer and that he or she already knows what that answer is. There is no curiosity about the new or different, only plans to defend the already existing truth against foreign un-truths. The right-wing conservative wakes up already knowing everything he or she cares to know and worrying that today might turn out to be worse than yesterday unless he or she takes action to protect what he or she already knows to be the truth.
What is worse, the right-wing conservative sees the liberals' openness as a weakness (remember the "flip-flopper" label?) and an opportunity to go on the attack.
But we liberals have a powerful tool to up-end the right-wing conservative mind: it's our curiosity. Try this next time: ask them, "Why?" Why do you believe that? Why do you think your taxes are too high? Why do you think that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.? Why do you think that poor people are lazy? Why do you think George W. Bush is a paragon of morality?
Then, and this is important, whatever their answer, ask them why they believe that. Soon it will be like one of those old sci-fi movies where the malevolent computer melts down when confronted with questions it cannot answer. Because the fact is very few Americans actually believe the right-wing ideology.
Rockridge Institute - Creating a Progressive Values Movement
Saturday, February 12, 2005
My country 'tis of thee
International law provides very specific rules for the treatment of those who are citizens of other countries. During a time of war there are sensible differences in how soldiers and civilians are to be treated, but all citizens of the enemy are covered.
The Bush administration's solution? Create a new category of person: the "illegal enemy combatant." They're not covered by international law, heck, they're not even mentioned in international law. So we can lock them up and torture them without violating any international law.
Then there's the matter of "war crimes," which the president might be accused of at some point. But international law covers only war crimes against other "nations."
The Bush administration solution? Create a new category: the "failed nation state." Afghanistan is one, Iraq is another, and since international law doesn't even mention failed nation states, the U can go ahead and invade and occupy these places without fussing over possible war crimes.
And who is the creative genius behind these legal contortions?
Attorney General designee Alberto Gonzales.
The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
The Seattle Times: Politics: Treaty doesn't bar cruelty, Gonzales says
The Bush administration's solution? Create a new category of person: the "illegal enemy combatant." They're not covered by international law, heck, they're not even mentioned in international law. So we can lock them up and torture them without violating any international law.
Then there's the matter of "war crimes," which the president might be accused of at some point. But international law covers only war crimes against other "nations."
The Bush administration solution? Create a new category: the "failed nation state." Afghanistan is one, Iraq is another, and since international law doesn't even mention failed nation states, the U can go ahead and invade and occupy these places without fussing over possible war crimes.
And who is the creative genius behind these legal contortions?
Attorney General designee Alberto Gonzales.
The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
The Seattle Times: Politics: Treaty doesn't bar cruelty, Gonzales says
Friday, February 11, 2005
American values: The Bush rendition
As he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, a young Canadian man was seized by U.S. authorities as he changed planes at Kennedy Airport in New York. Maher Arar was not charged with a crime nor even told what was happening, but instead he was taken from his family, placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet which flew him to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, and then landed in Amman, Jordan. Eventually Mr. Arar was moved to Syria, where he was tortured for more than a year before being released.
The Bush administration has said that Mr. Arar's name appeared on "a list" and, since torture is illegal in the U.S., they simply had him kidnapped and moved to a foreign country where a "confession" could more easily be tortured out of him. The problem is, after lending their best efforts, our torturers concluded that we'd nabbed the wrong guy, and so we set Mr. Arar free.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Arar is suing the U.S. government. But the Bush administration has moved to have Arar's case thrown out of court arguing that if our government is forced to testify it would have to reveal details about our on-going program of "rendition" (that's what it's called when we kidnap people and wisk them to countries willing to torture them for us) and thereby undermine the George W. Bush's War on Terror. Besides, our government is arguing, Mr. Arar's name was on the list because of things Canada told us about him ... things which, of course, the Bush administration cannot reveal because to do so would undermine George W. Bush's War on Terror.
The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
The Star (Toronto) - U.S. claims Arar suit a risk to national security
New York Times - Torture, American Style
The Bush administration has said that Mr. Arar's name appeared on "a list" and, since torture is illegal in the U.S., they simply had him kidnapped and moved to a foreign country where a "confession" could more easily be tortured out of him. The problem is, after lending their best efforts, our torturers concluded that we'd nabbed the wrong guy, and so we set Mr. Arar free.
Not surprisingly, Mr. Arar is suing the U.S. government. But the Bush administration has moved to have Arar's case thrown out of court arguing that if our government is forced to testify it would have to reveal details about our on-going program of "rendition" (that's what it's called when we kidnap people and wisk them to countries willing to torture them for us) and thereby undermine the George W. Bush's War on Terror. Besides, our government is arguing, Mr. Arar's name was on the list because of things Canada told us about him ... things which, of course, the Bush administration cannot reveal because to do so would undermine George W. Bush's War on Terror.
The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.
The Star (Toronto) - U.S. claims Arar suit a risk to national security
New York Times - Torture, American Style
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
The Bush Budget: Doing America
A neighbor, one of those "compassionate conservatives," says he doesn't know much about the details of George W. Bush's budget proposal, but he "likes that 'ownership society' thing. If the government would just get off people's backs, then more of us could get ahead, own our own, like you, like me. I'm all about personal responsibility, and so's the President. That's what America's all about."
Which means the next phase is unfolding exactly according to plan: get the rubes to buy into a shiny platitude like "ownership society" and they'll never notice as we finish dismantling America and handing off its parts to our cronies.
The Bush budget proposal is the most austere in three decades ... and it still increases the Federal deficit. What is more, Bush does not include either the cost of Iraq or any funding for his proposed assault on the Social Security system.
Consider these two facts:
Most of the plunge in revenue came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. It wasn't the "War on Terror" (the cost of which Bush habitually leaves out) nor was it the "Clinton Recession" (which ended three years ago). No, the revenue shortfall is the direct result of the conscious choice to slash the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes.
(Doubt that? While Bush was busy cutting taxes on the wealthy the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, has grown to record levels.)
So, given these facts, it would seem reasonable include plans to increase revenue as a part of the budget, right?
Wrong. Instead of rolling back the recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy Bush's budget, in fact, contains new upper-income tax breaks.
Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts: child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers (never meant to be part of the "ownership society"), severely reductions to Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (don't vote and therefore politically expendable).
But my neighbor will tell you that his taxes are already high enough. The question is: how does he know that?
Economist (UK) - Holding the line?
Which means the next phase is unfolding exactly according to plan: get the rubes to buy into a shiny platitude like "ownership society" and they'll never notice as we finish dismantling America and handing off its parts to our cronies.
The Bush budget proposal is the most austere in three decades ... and it still increases the Federal deficit. What is more, Bush does not include either the cost of Iraq or any funding for his proposed assault on the Social Security system.
Consider these two facts:
Federal spending is now going down. As a share of GDP Federal expenditures will be below their 20 year average (and, unlike the President's proposal, that's including the cost of Iraq, without which Federal outlays would be even farther below the average).How can this be? Simple, the right-wing conservatives who run America are now launching the final phase of their "starve the beast" strategy to destroy the "liberal society" that they believe started with the New Deal.
Federal revenue is down even further and has been going down longer. Federal taxes on personal income and corporate profits are at the lowest percent of GDP since 1942. And overall Federal revenue is a low as it's been since the 1950s.
Most of the plunge in revenue came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. It wasn't the "War on Terror" (the cost of which Bush habitually leaves out) nor was it the "Clinton Recession" (which ended three years ago). No, the revenue shortfall is the direct result of the conscious choice to slash the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes.
(Doubt that? While Bush was busy cutting taxes on the wealthy the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, has grown to record levels.)
So, given these facts, it would seem reasonable include plans to increase revenue as a part of the budget, right?
Wrong. Instead of rolling back the recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy Bush's budget, in fact, contains new upper-income tax breaks.
Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts: child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers (never meant to be part of the "ownership society"), severely reductions to Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (don't vote and therefore politically expendable).
But my neighbor will tell you that his taxes are already high enough. The question is: how does he know that?
Economist (UK) - Holding the line?
Monday, February 07, 2005
Religious Fanatic Directs New Pentagon Black-Ops
Donald Rumsfeld, was everywhere yesterday, but in all those appearances he barely mentioned that, in contrast to his spectacularly unsuccessful occupation of Iraq, he has managed to seize complete control of U.S. intelligence operations and centralize them under his direction in the Pentagon.
He also forgot to mention who he's put in charge: Lt. Gen. William Boykin.
Boykin. Sounds familiar. Is it William Boykin? Let's see. Yes, here it is.
Lt. Gen. William Boykin is the religious fanatic who, during the early months of George W. Bush's War on Terror, in public speeches while dressed in uniform and representing the Pentagon, said that the U.S. Army is "the house of God" that Islamic insurgents are "agents of Satan." In a speech in 2003, Boykin referred to a Muslim fighter in Somalia, and said, "Well, you know, I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." That one caused such a public outcry that Boykin was reprimanded.
And now, a couple of years later he's been promoted and put in charge of the largest black-ops, off budget, secret military operation in the history of the world. The man who says that radical Muslims have been stirred into action against the U.S. by "demonic powers" because it is a "Christian nation" is in charge of all manner of spies and special operations, and all of his activities are beyond public scrutiny because to reveal them would weaken the War on Terror.
So now the U.S. has appointed a notorious religious fanatic to dispatch Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims. Of course if he was a Muslim and directing clandestine operations against us, we'd call him a terrorist leader. Good thing he reports to Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, wait a minute...
Toronto Sun - Paranoia grips the U.S. capital
International Relations and Security Network (Zurich) - U.S. Marine general says "wars are a hoot"
He also forgot to mention who he's put in charge: Lt. Gen. William Boykin.
Boykin. Sounds familiar. Is it William Boykin? Let's see. Yes, here it is.
Lt. Gen. William Boykin is the religious fanatic who, during the early months of George W. Bush's War on Terror, in public speeches while dressed in uniform and representing the Pentagon, said that the U.S. Army is "the house of God" that Islamic insurgents are "agents of Satan." In a speech in 2003, Boykin referred to a Muslim fighter in Somalia, and said, "Well, you know, I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." That one caused such a public outcry that Boykin was reprimanded.
And now, a couple of years later he's been promoted and put in charge of the largest black-ops, off budget, secret military operation in the history of the world. The man who says that radical Muslims have been stirred into action against the U.S. by "demonic powers" because it is a "Christian nation" is in charge of all manner of spies and special operations, and all of his activities are beyond public scrutiny because to reveal them would weaken the War on Terror.
So now the U.S. has appointed a notorious religious fanatic to dispatch Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims. Of course if he was a Muslim and directing clandestine operations against us, we'd call him a terrorist leader. Good thing he reports to Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, wait a minute...
Toronto Sun - Paranoia grips the U.S. capital
International Relations and Security Network (Zurich) - U.S. Marine general says "wars are a hoot"
Friday, February 04, 2005
The Last Poets
Nearly one-third of all high school students believe that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. One fifth of high schools in America have no student newspaper at all, and most of those eliminated it in the last five years due to lack of interest.
A report sponsored by the James L. Knight Foundation goes a long way toward explaining why most Americans cannot understand why the rest of the world does not behave like they're supposed to ... and why they trust Fox News as a source.
For a journalism graduate, these are very sad times. Is it merely laziness? Or is this another play in the right-wing's never-ending to effort strike the right balance: citizens who are informed just well enough to be good Walmart consumers, but who don't know enough to question the President.
In the words of the Last Poets:*
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation - Survey Finds First Amendment Is Being Left Behind in U.S. High Schools
* If you've got to ask, you probably won't get it. While never a commercial success, the 1960s band pioneered the rap style using obstreperous and mostly obscene verse to chide a while nation whose inclination was to maintain the yoke of oppression around the neck of the disenfranchised. One Last Poets' song ends with the chant, "Wake up niggers, or we're all through." Most of us thought they were just talking about black folks.
A report sponsored by the James L. Knight Foundation goes a long way toward explaining why most Americans cannot understand why the rest of the world does not behave like they're supposed to ... and why they trust Fox News as a source.
For a journalism graduate, these are very sad times. Is it merely laziness? Or is this another play in the right-wing's never-ending to effort strike the right balance: citizens who are informed just well enough to be good Walmart consumers, but who don't know enough to question the President.
In the words of the Last Poets:*
When the revolution comes
some of us will catch it on TV
with chicken hanging from our mouths
you'll know it's revolution
because there won't be no commercials
when the revolution comes
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation - Survey Finds First Amendment Is Being Left Behind in U.S. High Schools
* If you've got to ask, you probably won't get it. While never a commercial success, the 1960s band pioneered the rap style using obstreperous and mostly obscene verse to chide a while nation whose inclination was to maintain the yoke of oppression around the neck of the disenfranchised. One Last Poets' song ends with the chant, "Wake up niggers, or we're all through." Most of us thought they were just talking about black folks.
Sunday, January 30, 2005
Freedom of the Press
Having successfully purchased several right wing commentators, the Bush administration is moving on to its next media target: closing down Al Jazeera, the television station that provides a major source of news for much of the Arab world.
After squandering any chance of influencing the balance of Al Jazeera's coverage by refusing to make U.S. officials available for interview and arranging for our strongman in Baghdad to ban the network and seize its equipment and personnel there, and having failed to starve the fledgling network out of business by covertly intimidating its advertisers, the Bush administration has decided to pressure the government of Qatar to close down the satellite network.
Al Jazeera has been a fiercely independent voice in the middle east, and a growing irritant to U.S. friendly governments, especially in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. No doubt Al Jazeera regularly gives airplay to taped message from Osama bin laden, and, following a page from the Fox News Live playbook, tends to repeatedly run video of civilian casualties and feature prominently the other side of stories like the leveling of Fallujah by U.S. forces, but why would anyone expect Bush to defend freedom of the press over there when he's so clearly intent on dismantling it here?
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Under Pressure, Qatar May Sell Jazeera Station
After squandering any chance of influencing the balance of Al Jazeera's coverage by refusing to make U.S. officials available for interview and arranging for our strongman in Baghdad to ban the network and seize its equipment and personnel there, and having failed to starve the fledgling network out of business by covertly intimidating its advertisers, the Bush administration has decided to pressure the government of Qatar to close down the satellite network.
Al Jazeera has been a fiercely independent voice in the middle east, and a growing irritant to U.S. friendly governments, especially in Saudi Arabia and Qatar. No doubt Al Jazeera regularly gives airplay to taped message from Osama bin laden, and, following a page from the Fox News Live playbook, tends to repeatedly run video of civilian casualties and feature prominently the other side of stories like the leveling of Fallujah by U.S. forces, but why would anyone expect Bush to defend freedom of the press over there when he's so clearly intent on dismantling it here?
The New York Times > International > Middle East > Under Pressure, Qatar May Sell Jazeera Station
Saturday, January 29, 2005
It's My Party, Too Bad the Patient's Terminal
In the usual run-up to a book release, Christie Todd Whitman was everywhere last week. The former Republican Governor of New Jersey and former EPA chief, was pleading with us to believe that the majority of Republicans are actually "moderate," and that, any day now, these "moderate" Republicans will wrest control of the G.O.P. from the right-wing power mongers who are now bent upon transforming America from merely the most conservative and violent nation in the history of human kind into a true fascist theocracy ... and intent on getting it all done before the mid-term elections in 2006.
She's even got a web spiffy site, "It's My Party Too", which encourages "moderate" Republicans to contribute money and join forces to focus on the 2008 elections. Clearly a case of too little, too late, Whitman admits to delaying the release of her book to avoid any impact on the election, "If I had spoken up during the campaign, people would have viewed it in the context of the election." Exactly the point: too little, too late!
Meanwhile the right-wing bloggers (for example NewsMax (FL) - Boneheaded Advice: Christie Todd Whitman and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party just don't get it) are busy taking her apart and the White House has unleashed the usual attack dogs. Un-named "sources" have even compared her to (shudder) Michael Moore!
"I expected criticism," Mrs. Whitman, said last week, sitting in the living room of Pontefract*, her family's gracious farm in New Jersey's hunt country. "But I'm surprised at how personal the attacks are."
There's a chance it might work. Maybe. But picture this:
After four years of costly and increasingly frantic attempts at all manner of surgery, medication, and rehabilitation they finally have to admit that all along the patient's brain cancer has been too virulent, too extensive, and now it's clear that the G.O.P. is hopelessly and dangerously psychotic. And while they've been trying to save their terminally ill patient, hundreds of thousands more have been killed as a result of the invasion of Iran and Syria, thousands more Americans have been locked up indefinitely and held in secret, the U.S. debt has grown larger than the sum of all of the Third World's economies, their god is worshiped in public school classrooms (and several chapters have been ripped from the science text books), no woman any longer has the right to choose ...
Given the symptoms and the danger this patient presents to all of the rest of us, it's time to make the hard choice. Euthanasia is the only sensible treatment, and the sooner the better.
New York Times - Loyal to Her Party, but Not in Lock Step
* Pay attention! "Pontefract" is the Whitman family compound named after Pontefract Castle in England, built in 1080’s by Ilbert de Lacy, who was given the land (at the time owned and occupied by local farmers) by William the Conqueror as a reward for his faithful service. Keep that image in mind the next time you're thinking about voting Republican because of their stand on "moral values."
She's even got a web spiffy site, "It's My Party Too", which encourages "moderate" Republicans to contribute money and join forces to focus on the 2008 elections. Clearly a case of too little, too late, Whitman admits to delaying the release of her book to avoid any impact on the election, "If I had spoken up during the campaign, people would have viewed it in the context of the election." Exactly the point: too little, too late!
Meanwhile the right-wing bloggers (for example NewsMax (FL) - Boneheaded Advice: Christie Todd Whitman and the Rockefeller wing of the Republican Party just don't get it) are busy taking her apart and the White House has unleashed the usual attack dogs. Un-named "sources" have even compared her to (shudder) Michael Moore!
"I expected criticism," Mrs. Whitman, said last week, sitting in the living room of Pontefract*, her family's gracious farm in New Jersey's hunt country. "But I'm surprised at how personal the attacks are."
There's a chance it might work. Maybe. But picture this:
After four years of costly and increasingly frantic attempts at all manner of surgery, medication, and rehabilitation they finally have to admit that all along the patient's brain cancer has been too virulent, too extensive, and now it's clear that the G.O.P. is hopelessly and dangerously psychotic. And while they've been trying to save their terminally ill patient, hundreds of thousands more have been killed as a result of the invasion of Iran and Syria, thousands more Americans have been locked up indefinitely and held in secret, the U.S. debt has grown larger than the sum of all of the Third World's economies, their god is worshiped in public school classrooms (and several chapters have been ripped from the science text books), no woman any longer has the right to choose ...
Given the symptoms and the danger this patient presents to all of the rest of us, it's time to make the hard choice. Euthanasia is the only sensible treatment, and the sooner the better.
New York Times - Loyal to Her Party, but Not in Lock Step
* Pay attention! "Pontefract" is the Whitman family compound named after Pontefract Castle in England, built in 1080’s by Ilbert de Lacy, who was given the land (at the time owned and occupied by local farmers) by William the Conqueror as a reward for his faithful service. Keep that image in mind the next time you're thinking about voting Republican because of their stand on "moral values."
Friday, January 28, 2005
American Style Elections: The Second Invasion of Iraq
The same Republican strategists who came up with the plan to short-change poor black precincts in the U.S. must be the ones organizing the Iraqi election. Even the most ardent partisan G.O.P. organizer in Ohio couldn't dream up a sham election like the one the Bush administration is holding in Iraq this weekend.
Since it's still too dangerous on the streets of Iraq, we've banned driving for the three days leading up to the election ... ensuring that the only ones to have a vote will be those daring souls willing to dart on foot to the polling place. Even then, assuming they make it to the polls in one piece, they'll have a bit of a challenge making an informed choice because we've prohibited any rallies or overt campaigning prior to the election ... which was probably redundant anyway since most candidates are running anonymously out of fear for their own lives.
So the intrepid citizens of Iraq, having risked their lives to participate in what George W. Bush has proclaimed "the miracle of democracy," will have the opportunity to cast their ballot for slates of anonymous candidates, and then run for their lives to make it back to the relative safety of their homes before dark.
Meanwhile, we've arranged to allow about 250,000 Iraqi expatriates, who live in American, Australia, and a dozen other countries, to vote at their leisure during the days before election day. They'll drive to a polling place in a secure government building after having had the opportunity to consider the candidates and their stands on the issues.
So what's wrong with that? Just this: the proportionate turnout among expatriates is certain to be much higher than that of any other group in Iraq. By definition, expatriate means "one who has renounced one's native land." But Bush has arranged it so that those who renounced their native land, in some cases decades ago, will be over represented in the outcome of this "election."
This is not so much an election as it is another invasion. And what of those Iraqis who stayed in their homeland? How will they receive these new invaders, former Iraqis returning to occupy the land that they abandoned?
No matter, because in the end Bush will insist that Iraq has held its first free and open election, and that at last it has a sovereign government which we will respect ... unless they ask us to withdraw our troops currently standing guard over the second largest petroleum reserve on the planet.
International Herald Tribune (France) - Iraq: This election is a sham
Reuters - Arabs say Iraq vote gives democracy a bad name
Since it's still too dangerous on the streets of Iraq, we've banned driving for the three days leading up to the election ... ensuring that the only ones to have a vote will be those daring souls willing to dart on foot to the polling place. Even then, assuming they make it to the polls in one piece, they'll have a bit of a challenge making an informed choice because we've prohibited any rallies or overt campaigning prior to the election ... which was probably redundant anyway since most candidates are running anonymously out of fear for their own lives.
So the intrepid citizens of Iraq, having risked their lives to participate in what George W. Bush has proclaimed "the miracle of democracy," will have the opportunity to cast their ballot for slates of anonymous candidates, and then run for their lives to make it back to the relative safety of their homes before dark.
Meanwhile, we've arranged to allow about 250,000 Iraqi expatriates, who live in American, Australia, and a dozen other countries, to vote at their leisure during the days before election day. They'll drive to a polling place in a secure government building after having had the opportunity to consider the candidates and their stands on the issues.
So what's wrong with that? Just this: the proportionate turnout among expatriates is certain to be much higher than that of any other group in Iraq. By definition, expatriate means "one who has renounced one's native land." But Bush has arranged it so that those who renounced their native land, in some cases decades ago, will be over represented in the outcome of this "election."
This is not so much an election as it is another invasion. And what of those Iraqis who stayed in their homeland? How will they receive these new invaders, former Iraqis returning to occupy the land that they abandoned?
No matter, because in the end Bush will insist that Iraq has held its first free and open election, and that at last it has a sovereign government which we will respect ... unless they ask us to withdraw our troops currently standing guard over the second largest petroleum reserve on the planet.
International Herald Tribune (France) - Iraq: This election is a sham
Reuters - Arabs say Iraq vote gives democracy a bad name
Thursday, January 27, 2005
Candor, Bush Style
It's no wonder that George W. Bush's handlers try their best to avoid press conferences. He just doesn't do well in these setting where they cannot carefully control admittance to ensure a room full of sycophants and where he has to think on his feet.
But because the media allots only enough space for small clips of the entire proceeding, most of Americans miss some of the better moments:
In response to the straightforward question: "What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?" Bush blamed it on the Iraqi people:
Or, in response to a more complex query asking if, philosophically, the long struggle for civil rights in this country should be considered a part of his rubric to bring freedom to the world, he deftly redefined "civil rights" (the grammar is all his):
But when he's really cornered, and all else has failed, he reverts to his frat-boy sense of humor and simply bullies the reporter into submission thereby avoiding the question entirely, as in this exchange with a reporter from Texas:
New York Times Transcript: President Bush's News Conference 01/26/2005
But because the media allots only enough space for small clips of the entire proceeding, most of Americans miss some of the better moments:
In response to the straightforward question: "What would you say to the American people, including a significant number who supported you at the beginning of the war, who now say this is not what we were led to believe would happen?" Bush blamed it on the Iraqi people:
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Listen, this problem will eventually be solved when the Iraqis take the initiative. And the Iraqi people see Iraqi soldiers willing to defend them. And so...and the American people, when they see the Iraqis step up and begin to fight, will see progress being made toward an objective which will make this world a better place."(If your son or daughter was among those killed or maimed, I'm sure that would make it all worthwhile.)
Or, in response to a more complex query asking if, philosophically, the long struggle for civil rights in this country should be considered a part of his rubric to bring freedom to the world, he deftly redefined "civil rights" (the grammar is all his):
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Yeah. Civil rights is...is a good education. Civil rights is opportunity. Civil rights is homeownership. Civil rights is owning your own business. Civil rights is making sure all aspects of our society are open for everybody. And we discussed that yesterday. And I believe that what I said was important; that we've got to, you know, shed ourselves of bigotry if we expect to lead by example. And I'll do the very best I can, as the president, to make sure the promise...and I believe in the promise of America...is available for everybody. Let's see."(That sound is the gasping of all of those who have died fighting civil rights in this country as their struggle is reduced to some capitalist-utopian venture.)
But when he's really cornered, and all else has failed, he reverts to his frat-boy sense of humor and simply bullies the reporter into submission thereby avoiding the question entirely, as in this exchange with a reporter from Texas:
Q: "I seem to remember a time in Texas on another problem...taxes...where you tried to get out in front and tell people it's not a crisis now, it's going to be a crisis down the line. You went down in flames on that one. Why is there..."(Interestingly, it seemed like that reporter was actually trying to ask a softball question favorable to Bush's alarmist approach to Social Security.)
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Actually, I...let me...let me, if I might...I don't think a billion dollar tax relief that permanently reduced property taxes on senior citizens was flames..."
Q: ...(attempting to continue, but off mike)...
PRESIDENT BUSH: "...but since you weren't a senior citizen, perhaps that's your definition of flame. Yeah..."
Q: "What is there about government..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "...'cause you're not a senior citizen yet."
Q: "I'm getting there. What is there about government that makes it hard..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Acting like one, however. Go ahead."
Q: "...that makes it hard for government to get..."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Faulty memory."
Q: "...to address things in advance, before it's a crisis?"
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Do we have a crisis in Texas now in school property taxes?"
Q: "Yes, we do."
PRESIDENT BUSH: "Thank you. Therefore, the...it is important that we continue to press forward with proper training."
New York Times Transcript: President Bush's News Conference 01/26/2005
Tuesday, January 25, 2005
Canada Joins the Axis of Evil
"Some future president is going to say, 'Why are we paying to defend Canada?' " Thus George W. Bush, with his usual level of appreciation for subtlety and nuance, inserted himself into the internal affairs of the Canadian people as they decide whether or not to allow the U.S. to build bases in their country as a part of the star wars missile defense system.
Let's remember, The Most Moral Man in America and Leader of the Free World also said, "The moral choice is between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right," and "We have lit a fire ... It warms those who feel its power. It burns those who fight its progress."
A senior administration official did not deny rumors that Donald Rumsfeld has ordered an update of Pentagon contingency plans for an invasion of Canada, saying, however, "all those Canadians who would oppose missile defense ought to remember that they're within driving distance."
CTV (Canada) - Bush wasn't pushy on missile defence, U.S. says
Let's remember, The Most Moral Man in America and Leader of the Free World also said, "The moral choice is between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right," and "We have lit a fire ... It warms those who feel its power. It burns those who fight its progress."
A senior administration official did not deny rumors that Donald Rumsfeld has ordered an update of Pentagon contingency plans for an invasion of Canada, saying, however, "all those Canadians who would oppose missile defense ought to remember that they're within driving distance."
CTV (Canada) - Bush wasn't pushy on missile defence, U.S. says
Monday, January 24, 2005
Little Lies
Momm always said, "don't tell lies," and then she listed all the usual reasons, "it's wrong, people won't trust you," and so on. But the last reason on her list was always the practical one, "and besides, it gets too complicated to have to remember what you said and when. Telling the truth is a lot easier."
So what's wrong with these Bushies? Thirty years ago George was arrested for drunk driving. Ten years ago he had his lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, cut a backroom deal with a judge to get him off jury duty in order to avoid the chance that the DUI might become a public embarrassment for the then Governor of Texas. Now, during his Senate confirmation to be Attorney General, Alberto insists he has no recollection of the matter and that he was just there to observe the proceedings. And then a half dozen folks who were there come forth with the truth: Alberto brokered a deal with the judge and lawyers to keep his boss out of that particular limelight.
Wouldn't it be a lot less complicated to tell the truth? "I want Alberto as my attorney general because he's a reliable toady lawyer who'll eagerly provide me with legal justification for whatever I want to do from torturing prisoners to spying on U.S. citizens." Or how about this: "We invaded Iraq to settle the score for my dadd and steal their oil," instead of "A power from beyond the stars has sent us on a mission to bring freedom and democracy to the world."
MSNBC - Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
So what's wrong with these Bushies? Thirty years ago George was arrested for drunk driving. Ten years ago he had his lawyer, Alberto Gonzales, cut a backroom deal with a judge to get him off jury duty in order to avoid the chance that the DUI might become a public embarrassment for the then Governor of Texas. Now, during his Senate confirmation to be Attorney General, Alberto insists he has no recollection of the matter and that he was just there to observe the proceedings. And then a half dozen folks who were there come forth with the truth: Alberto brokered a deal with the judge and lawyers to keep his boss out of that particular limelight.
Wouldn't it be a lot less complicated to tell the truth? "I want Alberto as my attorney general because he's a reliable toady lawyer who'll eagerly provide me with legal justification for whatever I want to do from torturing prisoners to spying on U.S. citizens." Or how about this: "We invaded Iraq to settle the score for my dadd and steal their oil," instead of "A power from beyond the stars has sent us on a mission to bring freedom and democracy to the world."
MSNBC - Gonzales: Did He Help Bush Keep His DUI Quiet?
Saturday, January 22, 2005
Much more than "merely an inspirational speech"
Plenty of commentators have discounted George W. Bush's inaugural speech as mere rhetoric. But was it just a speech? Or is something more sinister afoot?
If you wanted to accomplish the complete take-over of the United States, if you wanted to institute a police state in America, how would you go about it? A simple two step process would do it without a single shot being fired. First, adopting a plain spoken manner, you'd tell the folks what ever they wanted to hear in order to win their confidence and their votes. Then, once you're in, you'd scare the bejeebers out of them so they hush up. And Americans would enthusiastically line up to surrender their cherished liberties and, yes, their freedom, to "our" president.
But it couldn't happen here, right? Last Thursday was just a speech, right? George was just riffing a bit for the crowd when he said he had authority from "a power beyond the stars" to take America to war with any nation that doesn't see things our way, wasn't he?
No, he wasn't just playing to the audience. And he wasn't kidding. It was the next step in yet another sleight-of-hand maneuver by Bush to hoodwink the American people. Suddenly gone were the moderated and somewhat reasonable tones of his campaign, no longer useful having served their purpose in getting the 51% vote required to put him in office for another four years. Now that he's been sworn in he's announcing his true ambitions which, as in the past, are quite different than those for which most Americans voted.
In other words, the man who controls the most powerful and violent military force in the history of human kind is willing to routinely lie in order to get his way.
In his inaugural address Bush proclaimed that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." At confirmation hearings earlier in the week Condoleezza Rice named Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe as "outposts of tyranny" and the primary targets for the Bush administration. On Friday, a senior official said the administration also would demand that even "friendly" governments like Russia, China, Pakistan and Egypt institute democratic reforms to our liking, noting that some of the pressure to change would be "private" (read: "clandestine special operations") rather than public since the administration would want to be careful to avoid undermining a leader like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whom it counts as a democratic reformer.
Another senior official, a leading neoconservative who refused to be named, said that one of the chief "lessons learned" is an argument that neoconservatives have long made: a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
In other words, now the U.S. policy is to proactively overthrow the governments of those with whom we disagree and to do so through any means at our disposal.
This turn in U.S. policy is so radical that it's even rattled many Republicans. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
But make no mistake: he did mean it. Every word of it. Why would anyone think otherwise? It's a strategy that's worked well for him before. Next will come even more bellicose rhetoric in the State of the Union Address soon followed by loud and urgent proclamations of some new threat, one that could put at risk our very way of life. Inevitably all of the threatening and bluster will lead to an attack killing Americans some where in the world (if Bush is really lucky he'll again "hit the trifecta," as he once described 9/11, and it will happen on American soil).
And then the neoconservatives will get what they really want: an expanded PATRIOT Act; "Homeland Security" modeled after the Gestapo; preemptive mass arrests of whomever they want to arrest and however they want to arrest them, taken where ever they want to take them and kept for as long as they want to keep them; phone conversations, computers and e-mail, tax returns, census information, and body cavities all subject to close examination ... the enforcers will have exactly what they want, just like in a police state.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows
If you wanted to accomplish the complete take-over of the United States, if you wanted to institute a police state in America, how would you go about it? A simple two step process would do it without a single shot being fired. First, adopting a plain spoken manner, you'd tell the folks what ever they wanted to hear in order to win their confidence and their votes. Then, once you're in, you'd scare the bejeebers out of them so they hush up. And Americans would enthusiastically line up to surrender their cherished liberties and, yes, their freedom, to "our" president.
But it couldn't happen here, right? Last Thursday was just a speech, right? George was just riffing a bit for the crowd when he said he had authority from "a power beyond the stars" to take America to war with any nation that doesn't see things our way, wasn't he?
No, he wasn't just playing to the audience. And he wasn't kidding. It was the next step in yet another sleight-of-hand maneuver by Bush to hoodwink the American people. Suddenly gone were the moderated and somewhat reasonable tones of his campaign, no longer useful having served their purpose in getting the 51% vote required to put him in office for another four years. Now that he's been sworn in he's announcing his true ambitions which, as in the past, are quite different than those for which most Americans voted.
In other words, the man who controls the most powerful and violent military force in the history of human kind is willing to routinely lie in order to get his way.
In his inaugural address Bush proclaimed that the central purpose of his second term would be the promotion of democracy "in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." At confirmation hearings earlier in the week Condoleezza Rice named Cuba, Burma, North Korea, Iran, Belarus and Zimbabwe as "outposts of tyranny" and the primary targets for the Bush administration. On Friday, a senior official said the administration also would demand that even "friendly" governments like Russia, China, Pakistan and Egypt institute democratic reforms to our liking, noting that some of the pressure to change would be "private" (read: "clandestine special operations") rather than public since the administration would want to be careful to avoid undermining a leader like Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, whom it counts as a democratic reformer.
Another senior official, a leading neoconservative who refused to be named, said that one of the chief "lessons learned" is an argument that neoconservatives have long made: a central goal of the United States should be "systemic change" - changing hostile states' regimes, not merely their policies.
In other words, now the U.S. policy is to proactively overthrow the governments of those with whom we disagree and to do so through any means at our disposal.
This turn in U.S. policy is so radical that it's even rattled many Republicans. "If Bush means it literally, then it means we have an extremist in the White House," said Dimitri Simes, president of the Nixon Center, a conservative think tank that reveres the less idealistic policies of Richard Nixon. "I hope and pray that he didn't mean it ... [and] that it was merely an inspirational speech, not practical guidance for the conduct of foreign policy."
But make no mistake: he did mean it. Every word of it. Why would anyone think otherwise? It's a strategy that's worked well for him before. Next will come even more bellicose rhetoric in the State of the Union Address soon followed by loud and urgent proclamations of some new threat, one that could put at risk our very way of life. Inevitably all of the threatening and bluster will lead to an attack killing Americans some where in the world (if Bush is really lucky he'll again "hit the trifecta," as he once described 9/11, and it will happen on American soil).
And then the neoconservatives will get what they really want: an expanded PATRIOT Act; "Homeland Security" modeled after the Gestapo; preemptive mass arrests of whomever they want to arrest and however they want to arrest them, taken where ever they want to take them and kept for as long as they want to keep them; phone conversations, computers and e-mail, tax returns, census information, and body cavities all subject to close examination ... the enforcers will have exactly what they want, just like in a police state.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Pulls 'Neocons' Out of the Shadows
Thursday, January 20, 2005
Enter the Suburban Refugee
It's been a long strange trip. But, incredibly, George W. Bush has been inaugurated for a second time promising that his higher power from beyond the stars will guide the nation.
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
Enter the Suburban Refugee
It's been a long strange trip. But, incredibly, George W. Bush has been inaugurated for a second time promising that his higher power from beyond the stars will guide the nation.
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
And so, with that, Woodburydadd is moving and changing his name.
The new name, which requires a lot less explaining, is the Suburban Refugee.
Look for us now at www.suburbanrefugee.com and on Blogspot at suburbanrefugee.blogspot.com
"Power Beyond the Stars" says Iran is next
While Americans were distracted by the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration the rest of the world was paying closer attention, and the message was loud and clear: How will the U.S. mark the two year anniversary of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why by attacking its neighbor Iran, that's how.
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
"Power Beyond the Stars" says Iran is next
While Americans were distracted by the pomp and circumstance of the inauguration the rest of the world was paying closer attention, and the message was loud and clear: How will the U.S. mark the two year anniversary of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq? Why by attacking its neighbor Iran, that's how.
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Of course it's true, Bush never used the word "Iran" in his inaugural address. He just declared war on the rest of the world citing as his authority a power coming from "somewhere beyond the stars" and vowing to fight for those seeking freedom from the "rulers of outlaw regimes."
And Condi Rice, soon to be America's chief diplomat, only set the stage by saying, "It's really hard to find common ground with a government that thinks Israel should be extinguished," thus abandoning a diplomatic approach.
No, to really get the story you had to listen to The Angry Puppeteer himself, Dick Cheney. Just minutes before the inauguration hoopla began he warned right-wing talk radio listeners Iran has a "fairly robust new nuclear program," is a sponsor of terrorism against Americans, and ignores the rights of its citizens. (Gee, they've got WMD and they sponsor terrorism? On top of that they're nasty to their own people? No irony there.) Then he on to predict that a coalition of the U.S. and Israel Israel "might well decide to act first" militarily.
So there you have it, the "power beyond the stars" is Dick Cheney.
Scotsman News - War with Iran Not Ruled Out by Bush
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Condi's Ghost of Christmas Past
"The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot," said Richard Armitage, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State.
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Condi's Ghost of Christmas Past
"The biggest regret is that we didn't stop 9/11. And then in the wake of 9/11, instead of redoubling what is our traditional export of hope and optimism we exported our fear and our anger. And presented a very intense and angry face to the world. I regret that a lot," said Richard Armitage, outgoing Deputy Secretary of State.
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
That's likely to be the last little bit of candor from the State Department for a while if Condoleezza Rice's "see-no-evil, hear-no-evil" analysis of the Bush administration at her confirmation hearings this week is any indicator.
The Australian - Reflections of a straight shooter
Monday, January 17, 2005
Iraq? Don't blame Bush. It's your fault. It's all your fault.
It's official. You, as an American, are personally responsible for the mess in Iraq. The invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, the devastation, the hell that is daily life on the streets, the brutal political dictatorship ... it's all your fault.
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains the Suburban Refugee to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains the Suburban Refugee to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
Iraq? Don't blame Bush. It's your fault. It's all your fault.
It's official. You, as an American, are personally responsible for the mess in Iraq. The invasion, the occupation, the 100,000 dead civilians, the devastation, the hell that is daily life on the streets, the brutal political dictatorship ... it's all your fault.
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains Woodburydadd to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
According to George W. Bush he's not responsible, you are. And his proof is that you "re-elected" him last November.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections. The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
Much as it pains Woodburydadd to admit it, George W. Bush is right, though not for the reasons he thinks.
The American people are responsible for the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq and all of the atrocities and war crimes that have accompanied it. What is more, polls continue to show that upwards of fifty percent of Americans support the occupation, which has included the targeting of doctors, the bombing of hospitals, the wholesale destruction of entire cities, the sadism of "our troops" as they execute wounded prisoners, rape male and female detainees, and use Iraqis as human shields, to name a few of the war crimes inflicted in Iraqi civilians every single day.
So later today, when you see one of those magnetic "Support Our Troops" ribbons on the car ahead of you, remember what it means. And tonight, when today's carnage in Iraq ranks only a brief mention on the nightly news, remember that it is all being done in your name.
Washington Post - Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy (washingtonpost.com)
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Destroying Buddhas and Babylon
Remember a couple of years back when the evil-doers called the Taliban shocked the world by using the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan for artillery targets? The world protested in outrage, but the Taliban said they had to destroy the graven images because they were an affront to god.
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
Destroying Buddhas and Babylon
Remember a couple of years back when the evil-doers called the Taliban shocked the world by using the giant Buddhas of Bamiyan for artillery targets? The world protested in outrage, but the Taliban said they had to destroy the graven images because they were an affront to god.
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
The good news is that many of the other artifacts at the site in Afghanistan have been preserved and plans have been made to restore some of the damaged statues. Just in time, it turns out, for the archaeologists to beat it on over to Iraq where the U.S. military has been wantonly destroying the ancient city of Babylon.
In our case it's different, of course. We're not using the excuse of graven images and "god told me to do it." No, we're ripping up the place because of its strategic importance to the War on Terror and in order to bring the almighty's gifts of freedom and democracy to the locals.
Besides, we're big enough to apologize. According to a Pentagon spokesman, plans are being considered to move some of the military units in order "to better preserve the Babylon ruins. The significance of Babylon is not lost on the coalition. The site dates back to the time of Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon."
That's it. We're sensitive. Smart too. Besides, we're there to help. Somehow that makes it different when a U.S. soldier gouges out a decorated brick from the famous Ishtar Gate as a souvenir and then drives away in his tank crushing the 2,600-year-old brick pavement.
CBC News (Canada) - Mission secures Buddhas of Bamiyan site in Afghanistan
Guardian (UK) - Babylon wrecked by war
Friday, January 14, 2005
Norm Coleman's Strategy: Feign Horror at Petty Corruption and You Never Have to Say You're Sorry for All the Destruction
Now that we have "officially" admitted what we've known all along, that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps Minnesota's own Norm Coleman will be the first to admit that the economic sanctions were working and that U.S. paranoia regarding Saddam Hussein is responsible for the mess that was made of the oil-for-food program.
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.Look at Baghdad in 2002, after years of the food-for-oil program that Norm Coleman condemns as "corrupt." Emerging from near total economic ruin after the first war with the U.S., Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks.
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
Norm Coleman's Strategy: Feign Horror at Petty Corruption and You Never Have to Say You're Sorry for All the Destruction
Now that we have "officially" admitted what we've known all along, that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction, perhaps Minnesota's own Norm Coleman will be the first to admit that the economic sanctions were working and that U.S. paranoia regarding Saddam Hussein is responsible for the mess that was made of the oil-for-food program.
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
The original idea was simple: maintain economic sanctions on Iraq so that it can't re-build its military following the war in Kuwait. However, given the near certainty that sanctions would trigger unbearable suffering for the citizens of Iraq, the U.S. devised the oil-for-food program which would allow Iraq to sell a certain amount of its crude oil production in exchange for humanitarian goods, all subject to close review and scrutiny with the U.N. serving as the exchange banker for the transactions.
However, always suspicious of Saddam Hussein, the U.S. consistently used its veto power to block billions of dollars of humanitarian goods legitimately bought by Iraq under the oil-for-food agreement.
Then, fearing the worst from Hussein, the U.S. devised a new strategy: force oil buyers to commit to contracts where the price is set after the oil is sold. This insane process quickly brought oil sales to a halt, starving the oil-for-food program of money to the point that billions of dollars of humanitarian contracts could not be paid for by the U.N.
According to Scott Ritter (yes, that Scott Ritter, the former U.S. weapons inspector who first pointed out that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction):
The corruption evident in the oil-for-food program was real, but did not originate from within the United Nations, as Norm Coleman and others are charging. Its origins are in a morally corrupt policy of economic strangulation of Iraq implemented by the United States as part of an overall strategy of regime change. Since 1991, the United States had made it clear - through successive statements by James Baker, George W Bush and Madeleine Albright - that economic sanctions, linked to Iraq's disarmament obligation, would never be lifted even if Iraq fully complied and disarmed, until Saddam Hussein was removed from power. This policy remained unchanged for over a decade, during which time hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died as a result of these sanctions.Look at Baghdad in 2002, after years of the food-for-oil program that Norm Coleman condemns as "corrupt." Emerging from near total economic ruin after the first war with the U.S., Baghdad was full of booming businesses, restaurants were full, and families walked freely along well-lit parks.
Now look at the day-to-day reality of Baghdad today where the city lies in ruins, there is electricity only a few hours a day, shortages of food and water abound, and most citizens spend their time running for their lives.
True, Saddam Hussein is gone, but whatever petty corruption there may have been in the oil-for-food program pales in comparison to the destruction the U.S. has rained on Iraq over the past two years.
Independent (UK) - The oil-for-food "scandal" is a cynical smokescreen
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
When will they come for you?
Surprise! George W. Bush picked a loyal right-wing law enforcement officer to head the Department of Homeland Security. Michael Chertoff used to be a federal prosecutor before Bush appointed him as federal appeals court judge. Chertoff was also deeply involved in Federal prosecutions following 9/11 and a strong advocate for the elimination of civil liberties under Bush's Patriot Act.
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
When will they come for you?
Surprise! George W. Bush picked a loyal right-wing law enforcement officer to head the Department of Homeland Security. Michael Chertoff used to be a federal prosecutor before Bush appointed him as federal appeals court judge. Chertoff was also deeply involved in Federal prosecutions following 9/11 and a strong advocate for the elimination of civil liberties under Bush's Patriot Act.
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
So now the guy in charge of making all feel more secure at home is going to be a lawyer who has no qualms arresting and prosecuting those who disagree with the government. Meanwhile the Attorney General is likely to be the lawyer who advised Bush to go ahead and jail forever people when you don't have enough evidence to convict them and cannot manage to torture a confession out of them.
First Bush came for the terrorists, but since none of us were terrorists, we did not speak out. Then he came for the "enemy combatants," but since we didn't know any enemy combatants, we did not object. And even last summer, when they came for the protestors resisting "free speech zones" near Bush campaign rallies, we only voiced mild objection.
How long will it be before they come for someone we know, and then for the rest of us?
Associated Press - Bush Picks Ex-Prosecutor for Homeland Post
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Faced with the Facts in the War on Victims of Medical Malpractice
George W. Bush launched a new war, this one on victims of medical malpractice, in a speech in Madison County, IL, which was described as a "judicial hellhole" because of its alleged history of lopsided pro-plaintiff verdicts.
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Faced with the Facts in the War on Victims of Medical Malpractice
George W. Bush launched a new war, this one on victims of medical malpractice, in a speech in Madison County, IL, which was described as a "judicial hellhole" because of its alleged history of lopsided pro-plaintiff verdicts.
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Problem is it's not true. Not a word of it.
Of 720 medical malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits filed from 1996 to 2003, only 14 cases - 1.9 percent - resulted in jury verdicts. Eight of those favored the defendant. And of the six verdicts favoring the plaintiff, only one exceeded the $250,000 cap that Bush has proposed.
As to Bush's hysterical claim that well meaning doctors are being driven from their practices by greedy plaintiffs and their lawyers: network executives at Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Illinois' largest health insurer, said that they are "not aware of any great flight of physicians because of the malpractice issues. We are basically about where we have been. Even anecdotally, [we are] not hearing any evidence of that."
Roanoke Times )VA) - So much for facts on tort reform
Delusions
"We're making great progress," and the Iraqi election is "a historical marker for our Iraq policy," chirped George W. Bush, adding, without a hint of irony, "I suspect if you were asking me questions 18 months ago and I said there's going to be elections in Iraq, you would have had trouble containing yourself from laughing out loud at the president."
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Delusions
"We're making great progress," and the Iraqi election is "a historical marker for our Iraq policy," chirped George W. Bush, adding, without a hint of irony, "I suspect if you were asking me questions 18 months ago and I said there's going to be elections in Iraq, you would have had trouble containing yourself from laughing out loud at the president."
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Bush acknowledged that in parts of four of Iraq's 18 provinces, "terrorists are trying to stop people from voting," failing to mention that one-half of the population of Iraq lives in those four provinces, and refusing to acknowledge that the insurgency is growing stronger, having just this week demonstrated that they have learned how to successfully attack and kill 50,000 pound Bradley armored vehicles.
Meanwhile Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, said that the only chance the U.S. might have of meeting its goals of producing a reasonably stable Iraqi government would be "if we are willing to put in 500,000 troops, spend $200 billion a year, probably have the draft and have some kind of wartime taxation," adding that even then, far from the Jeffersonian democracy Mr. Bush extols, the most we can hope for is a Shiite-controlled theocracy.
Toward the end of the week, U.S. forces handed the insurgents another victory when they mistakenly dropped a 500 pound bomb on a private home. Residents said the U.S. attack killed 14 civilians. The Pentagon acknowledge its mistake, but said only five were killed.
Los Angeles Times - Bush Optimistic About Iraq Vote Despite Warnings
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Our Newest Credibility Gap: Tsunami Warnings
Did the U.S. have advanced warning of the tsunami hurtling toward the populated areas of the Indian Ocean and choose not to warn anyone? Were U.S. experiments in electromagnetic wave propagation responsible for the earthquake? Did a top secret U.S. nuclear weapon test trigger the movement of the tectonic plates?
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's imminent plan to attack the U.S., and Iraqi involvement in 9/11 have undermined trust in U.S. intelligence agencies and our government... the list just goes on an on.
the fictional account of soldier Jessica Lynch's bravery and the outright lies surrounding the "friendly fire" killing of NFL hero Pat Tillman have caused the world to question the valor of U.S. soldiers
last week's news that conservative talk-show host and commentator Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration promote No Child Left Behind
George W. Bush's claim last summer that Fidel Castro "welcomes sex tourism"
last year's "surprise" increase in the cost of Bush's prescription drug program
the Pentagon spokesman last fall who told CNN that the invasion of Fallujah had begun when it would not begin for another three weeks
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Our Newest Credibility Gap: Tsunami Warnings
Did the U.S. have advanced warning of the tsunami hurtling toward the populated areas of the Indian Ocean and choose not to warn anyone? Were U.S. experiments in electromagnetic wave propagation responsible for the earthquake? Did a top secret U.S. nuclear weapon test trigger the movement of the tectonic plates?
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Probably not.
While domestic media moves Americans deftly through the stages of grieving ... after this week's spate of hopeful survivor stories we seem to be well on our way to full reconciliation, just in time to shove the whole thing aside for the NFL playoffs ... international and alternative media have carried a rising tide of stories that the U.S. did not do all it could to warn those in the path of the tsunami.
But U.S. denials are being viewed with skepticism.
This is one of the costs of the Bush administration's years of deception and misinformation. From large to small, George W. Bush has pursued an aggressive policy of managing information to his own advantage and of misleading and lying when it furthers his own objectives:
lies about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein's imminent plan to attack the U.S., and Iraqi involvement in 9/11 have undermined trust in U.S. intelligence agencies and our government... the list just goes on an on.
the fictional account of soldier Jessica Lynch's bravery and the outright lies surrounding the "friendly fire" killing of NFL hero Pat Tillman have caused the world to question the valor of U.S. soldiers
last week's news that conservative talk-show host and commentator Armstrong Williams was paid by the Bush administration promote No Child Left Behind
George W. Bush's claim last summer that Fidel Castro "welcomes sex tourism"
last year's "surprise" increase in the cost of Bush's prescription drug program
the Pentagon spokesman last fall who told CNN that the invasion of Fallujah had begun when it would not begin for another three weeks
Woodburydadd has a friend, raised in a small Midwestern town, whose mother always warned her, "Remember, in a small town the only thing you have is your reputation."
The United States of America would do well to remember that the world is a small town and that our reputation is the only thing we have. Given our track record, why wouldn't they believe that we had something to do with the tidal wave? Why would they trust anything we have to say?
Daily Times (Pakistan) - U.S. denies "foreknowledge" of Asian tsunami
Guardian (UK) - U.S. Island Base Given Warning
Dissident Voice (CA) - Tsunami Cover Up? NOAA and the Flood
Herald Tribune (FL) - Credibility at Stake: Eventually, misinformation is a disadvantage
Friday, January 07, 2005
Stirring the Pot
U.S. military commanders declined to coordinate with local leaders in deployment of 10 Seahawk helicopters in Banda Aceh, and they flat out refused pleas from Major General Bambang Darmono, the commander of the military relief operation in Aceh, who was frantically trying to arrange for the use of aircraft to conduct damage assessment surveys in order to determine the needs of his people.
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Stirring the Pot
U.S. military commanders declined to coordinate with local leaders in deployment of 10 Seahawk helicopters in Banda Aceh, and they flat out refused pleas from Major General Bambang Darmono, the commander of the military relief operation in Aceh, who was frantically trying to arrange for the use of aircraft to conduct damage assessment surveys in order to determine the needs of his people.
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Then Father Chris Riley, who heads the Catholic charity Youth Off The Streets, arrived in Aceh and immediately announced plans to set up an orphanage to house some of the estimated 35,000 children with dead or missing parents.
Next Hilmy Bakar Almascaty, leader of the Islamic Defenders Front, warned that the orphanage should not try to convert Muslim children to Christianity and that Fr Riley ought to stick purely to humanitarian work in Aceh.
And now the Washington Times, featuring the word "al Qaeda" in its headline, warns readers that "an extremist Islamic group with links to al Qaeda has set up relief operations in Aceh province on Sumatra island, raising concerns that international relief workers will become terrorist targets as in Iraq."
There's pattern here. And it seems familiar.
The News (AU) - Religious tensions stir in Aceh
Washington Times (DC) - Group linked to al Qaeda starts 'relief' work in Aceh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)