Jimmy Carter: Florida can't vote with confidence.

Via Common Dreams is this article by former President Jimmy Carter, stating that he does not think a fair and honest election in Florida is possible this year. I reprint the entire article here, since I think it's so important. This should have been the lead story of every US news broadcast yesterday, but it wasn't. What could be more important?


While he focuses on the problems in Florida, it is worth noting that the act he mentions at the beginning, the Help America Vote Act of October 2002, is a federal law, not a Florida state law, and that it is the responsibility of President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft to enforce it. They took an oath to enforce the laws, and are getting paid big bucks to do so.






Little Bush lies.

Sometimes it seems as if George W can't stop himself from lying, even when it's a matter of no import and when the truth is easy to ascertain. Yesterday he just had to take credit for Iraq being able to send a team to the Olympics, even though it's pretty easy to prove that they've been there through most of Saddam's time.


Notice also the other lie in the words "the world". It wasn't the whole "world", it was pretty much the US and the UK, with some help from some other countries, but less than one-fifth of those in the world.

It's very strange. Not "evil" though; it's just sad. And definitely pathological. I don't think he's even aware that he's lying. Via Eschaton.






The meltdown of the Republican party.

We're all hearing a lot of so-called pundits telling us about "blue states" and "red states", about how "the country has never been this divided before" (which would come as a great shock to the hundreds of thousands of Americans who died in the Civil War), and that this election is going to be very, very close and other such nonsense. I don't see any evidence of that. By virtually every objective measure I can come up with the Democrats are way ahead: the polls, the amount of money they're raising, the stunning sales of movies and books bashing Bush, and so on.

In fact, I think that the Republicans are going to get absolutely slaughtered in this election I'd say it will be 70:30 for the Democrats, at least, with the Presidency, the House and the Senate virtually in the bag at this point. They're going to get defeated so badly that after it's over they won't even be considered a mainstream party any longer. Just like Margaret Thatcher's Tories in the UK, who have become so discredited there that they are now desperately trying to hold on to even third place.

I know this isn't exactly the consensus viewpoint these days. So I was very gratified to read columnist Sidney Blumenthal's latest essay in the Guardian, Bush needs to change the subject, in which he gives an absolutely great overview of the situation. His basic claim is that the coalition that has led the Republicans to power was essentially founded by Richard Nixon in the late 60s, and that it is now unravelling.


He goes on to analyze very specifically the current political climate in several states that have been seen as Republican strongholds, and to make some other pertinent observations. You should read the article. But what he's saying is exactly what I've been thinking. Everything that the Republicans have been doing is based on the premise that they have lost virtually all popular support, and are essentially running on empty. That's the reason that they have taken to cheating so much. That's why they cheated in Florida, that's why they had to do that illegal gerrymandering of the districts in Texas, that's why they had to do the recall thing in California, that's why they had to ship in a Republican candidate in Illinois from a thousand miles away, and so on. They know perfectly well that they can't possibly succeed in any fair elections, and so aren't even trying anymore. They have no policies to offer, or anything constructive to say. All they can do is attempt to frighten people, and it's not working anymore.

So, if you really hate George Bush, I think you're going to be very, very happy with the election results. I don't however think that you're going to be very happy with the one-party state that the Democrats are going to establish. But I'll save my thoughts on that for another post.






Election protection volunteers.

Personally I feel that American democracy, if in fact there ever was such a thing, is a stone-cold dead beast; and that there's no chance whatsoever of fair or honest elections in this country. At least not on the federal level; maybe somewhat for smaller local elections, but even those I fear have become contaminated by the greed and lawlessness created by the corporates.

But if you do think that there's a chance the November election could be considered fair, and you want to volunteer to help make it so, there's a group Election Protection Volunteers, that is organizing folks to help monitor the polls and to try to assure that the vote count has at least some connection to reality. They're looking for thousands of volunteers, needed all over the country. The site is hosted by the good, albeit unrealistically idealistic folks at Working for Change.






9/11 Commission chimera.

Via TruthOut, is an article by Ray McGovern, a longtime CIA employee, entitled 9/11 Commission Chimera, in which he challenges the work of the 9/11 Commission, especially its contention that no one was/is in charge of the American intelligence community. And accuses it of partisanship and of failing to pursue the real causes of resistance to American imperialism.


I wrote a post the other day on similar accusations made by a long-time FBI agent, who also suggests that things inside his agency were not really as the 9/11 Commission makes them out to be. Together they create some serious doubts about whether the commission was even really interested in finding out about 9/11, or whether they were just using the occasion to pursue partisan interests (on both sides).

One of the things McGovern points out is that only two of the ten commissioners had any real experience in the federal government. Given that it is striking that insiders _with_ long experience should be so suspicious and critical.






Public letter to the 9/11 Commission chairman from FBI whistleblower.

Via Common Dreams is an extraordinary Public Letter to 9/11 Commission Chairman from FBI Whistleblower, from a very brave woman named Sibel Edmonds. full of some amazing revelations, ending with some very strong charges against the commission itself.

I would have sworn that nothing this administration did would shock me, but I was wrong. It's a long letter, full of detailed charges, mostly regarding the operations of the FBI's translation office, the first step in the process of all intelligence. And all apparently very well documented and witnessed. A must-read, I'd say.


Essentially he's saying that not only is the FBI not doing all it can to fight (so-called) terrorism, but that people in it, at very high levels, are apparently blocking any investigations that may threaten certain private financial interests. Pretty amazing. He's accusing the 9/11 Commission of what amounts to a substantial cover-up of some crucial information, and does so in the strongest possible language. I love his conclusion:


I love the tooth analogy. That's also exactly what I want to say that Kerry will somehow make things better, because that's exactly what it is. No matter how well-meaning he may be, no matter how much he may want to "do the right thing", the system itself is utterly and throughly corrupt, and no one and nothing can change that. The longer we delay in addressing this central fact, the worse it will get. Period.

And we can't just HOPE it will get better somehow, not while America is pumping out unfathomable quantities of weapons of every possible description, including nuclear, chemical and biological WMDs, all using the latest 21st century technology, just as fast as it possibly can. 24/7. All of which Kerry proposes increasing: "no retreat, no surrender."

Addendum: there is a long analysis of her story and claims in the Asia Times, including more background, snippets from interviews with her, her attempts to file suit against the government for dismissing her and her claims, and on the vicious attempts by the feds to silence her, which include persecuting and harassing members of her family.



American media beginning to predict Democratic sweep.

In contrast to the skepticism of the international media (see previous post), American observers are beginning to see the possibility of a Democratic sweep of not only the White House, but the Senate and House as well. At least that's the conclusion of a Time magazine article on the subject, the first time I've seen a major media source acknowledge the possibility. They point out that the Democrats need only gain 11 seats to take the House, which isn't very much, only one out of three of the most heavily contested races.


They're being cautious, but even the corporates can see that there is a tide beginning to turn in America and it isn't moving to the right. Not by a long shot. I think there is a possibility of a Democratic sweep so strong that it could virtually eliminate the Republicans as a mainstream party. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they took a lot of the so-called "safe" seats as well.

I'd compare it to 1932 when FDR won so handily that the Republicans were forced into the political wilderness for a full generation. Except this time they just may not make it back. The things they're doing now will not be forgotten very soon.

And then the Democrats will take us straight into a serious war, just as Wilson (WWI), FDR (WWII) and JFK (Vietnam) did. They may not mean for it to happen, but history will overwhelm them, and Kerry's "no retreat, no surrender" will force his hand. Bummer.



International media skeptical about Kerry.

A BBC News report quotes a number of different papers around the world regarding Kerry, and seems to indicate that most of them still think Bush has a chance of being reelected. Surprising, given Kerry's clear lead in the polls, and the degree of animosity most Americans, of all persuasions, have developed towards him.

It's curious. While virtually everyone in the world claims to hate Bush, especially those outside the US, at the same time they seem to somehow want him to be there, and remain incredibly skeptical of the suggestion that he will lose.

Hard to say why this is. I think one reason is the same as the reason so many American Democrats have for blaming Bush for everything wrong with the US, even though the Democrats are clearly just as responsible for things as the Republicans: BLAMING BUSH IS A GOOD WAY TO AVOID ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR MISTAKES, AND IT ACTS TO DISTRACT ATTENTION FROM THE REAL PROBLEMS, MOST ESPECIALLY THEIR OWN CORRUPTION. Foreigners are able to blame Bush for everything, not America, which in turn allows them to continue to do business with the US, and cash in on all of the profits. Very convenient. And those who are truly opposed to or in conflict with the US want him to be reelected since he makes a good bogeyman to appeal to their own peoples.

In any case, I think they're all clearly wrong. Kerry is a virtual shoo-in at this point. Not a guarantee, but about as close as you can get.






Ron Reagan: The L-word is 'Liar'.

Ronald Reagon's son Ron, who spoke at the Democratic convention, is really speaking out against Bush. Via Truth Out, is this powerful essay from Esquire" attacking Bush on all fronts in the strongest possible language. (Esquire's has the article spread out over several pages. There's a one-page version at Truth Out.


If Ronald Reagan's son hates Bush so virulently, Kerry is in for a landslide. You can just feel it in the air.






Bush getting desperate to keep Blair in power.

A curious article in the very conservative British publication, The Spectator (registration required now), claims that Bush has become so desperate to keep Tony Blair in power that he is even pressuring the Tories there to support him. It's curious, since Blair is from the Labor Party, the British equivalent of the American Democrats, and the Tories are the British conservatives, who one would normally assume to be Bush's ideological compatriots.

But Blair is now Bush's sole remaining ally and friend in the world, and I guess by now he is so desperate to leave office with even some shred of his reputation intact that he is even willing to support a party that in many ways epitomizes everything he despises, and one whose members overwhelmingly oppose his policies. Well, as the old saying goes, "politics makes strange bedfellows."








US teetering on edge of "abyss" in Iraq.

An article in the Guardian paints a very bleak picture of the future of the American attempt to conquer Iraq.


There's really nothing new in this; at this point any competent observer of what's going on has realized that the US has lost, and that the repercussions of this disaster will come to haunt America for many years to come.

But what's really interesting about this article is that, reading it, one would get the impression that it is only the Americans who are in Iraq, and that they are the only ones with the problem. You'd never guess that the British have been there every step of the way, and that their credibility has been damaged as much as the US's. (There's not a single mention of the British presence in the article.) You'd never guess from it that British troops have also been beating and abusing prisoners.

Curious, but typical of the British, and of the Europeans in general. Blame the Americans for everything. Of course they want to share in the economic spoils of the war, and are busy taking advantage of the dollar's weakness to buy up all of the American assets they can get their hands on. But when things go bad, it's only Americans who are to blame.

But it should be made clear: Tony Blair and the British people are just as responsible for this as Bush and the Americans. If it had not been for their wholehearted support and encouragement, America could never have claimed that it was acting in the world's best interest, and that it had any support from the international community. I'd bet anything that if things had gone according to plan, the British would be boasting all over of their role.

But now there's no use of the word "coalition" to describe the problems. No, it's the "Americans" who are facing defeat, not the "coalition." It's the "Americans" who have made mistakes, not the other members of the "coalition." And these are our friends?






Powell says Bush was informed about problems with prisoners.

The Baltimore Sun reports that Colin Powell said that Bush was very definitely informed about complaints raised by the Red Cross and others as early as January. Which would directly contradict Bush's claim that he only recently became aware of the problems. (Via Talking Points Memo.)








Howard Dean's Dozen.

Got an email from Howard Dean, who has been working to help encourage and elect local democratic candidates since his own campaign ended. Have to say that this is the way to do it. The media and their cult of celebrity focus on Bush and Kerry and such, but local power is what democracy is all about. So many people seem to be focusing on getting rid of Bush. But that won't make any difference if the Democrats don't have support and power in local communities, the states, and the Congress. Which is what this is all about.

Kerry isn't much, if any, better than Bush. At least as far as I can see. He's a corporate flack and warmonger all the way. If he's going to do anything to improve things, it will only be if he's constantly pushed to do so by grassroots politicians from around the country.

Anyway, here's Dean's email.








LA Times poll shows Kerry has broad appeal.

A new LA Times poll [reg req] of New Hampshire voters shows that Senator Kerry has developed a surprising (at least to me) appeal to a very broad cross-section of prospective voters.


One reason I'm surprised by this is the fact that US Senators do notoriously poor in presidential politics, the popular perception about this notwithstanding. During the 20th century for instance, only two, Harding and Kennedy, actually won. As opposed to something like a dozen former state governors, such as Dean. Four out of the last five presidents (Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush II) were former state governors who had never held a federal office. And this is why I still think Dean has the best chance of actually being elected. On the other hand, I think the endorsement of him by such a longtime federal insider as Al Gore has really hurt him. It certainly lowered my opinion of him. But I remain rather convinced that whoever the Democratic candidate is will win, and win easily. The hostility to Bush is just amazing and growing daily. Even among Republicans.

One thing I'm _not_ surprised about is that health care and the economy are higher priorities with most Americans than the wars. Those certainly are my priorities at this point in time. Not that I've heard anything that would indicate that Kerry has any concrete proposals to do about them. On the contrary.

And I'm not that surprised to hear that Kerry is doing well among those opposed to the war. While his record in Vietnam is often mentioned in the press, he was also one of the founders of Vets Against the War. Something that gives him a certain amount of credibility among the baby boomers, and others opposed to American imperialism in general. The combination of the two packs a powerful punch.

  permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, January 24, 2004 at 11:08 AM

US to treat seniors who purchase foreign prescriptions same as heroin users.

As you may have heard, the Bush administration, using as their tools the FDA, which is now pretty much owned and controlled by the large pharmaceutical corporations, is moving to make the purchase or possession of prescription drugs purchased from outside the country illegal. While most attention on this focuses on the fact that they want to force to pay people much more for drugs that they could purchase much cheaper elsewhere, underlying this is the fact that they are in effect making foreign pharmaceuticals a "controlled" substance, and that they will begin prosecuting those who sell, purchase or possess them the same as they do heroin or crack dealers and users. Maybe not quite yet, but they are moving in that direction. They seriously intend to enforce their new rules, and that means arrests and prosecutions and jail terms. The first step is to declare them "dangerous" and "unsafe" and then to move from there. They do this one step at a time, but all of the legal precedents are in place, and their intention is clear, so now it's just a matter of time.

See this NY Times article, F.D.A. Begins Push to End Drug Imports, on the latest moves by the FDA. It's rather frightening, especially the fact that they are going ahead with this despite open and vigorous opposition by local government officials across the country.

A second "blitz" inspection by federal drug and customs officials of medicines imported from Canada has found that nearly all of the almost 2,000 packages opened contained foreign versions of American pharmaceuticals that officials said might not be safe.

... The inspections, whose results are to be formally announced next week, form part of a coordinated push by the Bush administration to stop drug imports and defuse a budding confrontation between Washington and the states.

The city governments of Springfield, Mass., and Montgomery, Ala., are already helping buy drugs from Canada to save money for themselves and their employees. And officials in more than a dozen states and scores of towns, cities and counties have said that they may do the same.

The F.D.A. commissioner, Mark McClellan, said in an interview that the results of the inspections, which took place in November, demonstrate that drugs ordered from Canada are often manufactured in distant corners of the world. After an earlier survey, the agency announced in September that most of the imported drugs it inspected were counterfeit knockoffs. Neither round of inspections included any chemical tests on the drugs.

Asked if the pills reviewed in the latest survey were unsafe, Dr. McClellan answered, "We just don't know, because it's so hard to tell."

Governors and mayors leading the charge for Canadian drugs flatly dismiss Dr. McClellan's safety concerns. Many point out that even though the value of drug imports from Canada probably topped $700 million last year, the F.D.A. has yet to identify a single patient harmed by the trade. And they say that Health Canada, which regulates drugs in Canada, is just as rigorous as the F.D.A.

"This has little to do with health and safety and everything to do with the pharmaceutical industry," said Peter A. Clavelle, mayor of Burlington, Vt., who said he intended to have a Canadian drug purchase program up and running for city employees and their families by March 1.

This is going to become a major campaign issue. And it's not just Democrats who are fighting it.

Some state officials say a showdown is inevitable.

"This is all going to come to a head in 2004," said Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, a Republican. "Either the F.D.A. will sue somebody or throw someone in jail over this, or the pharmaceutical companies choke off supply, or the F.D.A. comes to their senses."

I guess a lot of things are going to come to a head in 2004.

  permalink, posted by mike on Saturday, January 24, 2004 at 10:08 AM

January 23, 2004

The Other America.

Writing in the NY Times, columnist Bob Herbert addresses the problems of The Other America, and openly acknowledges that perhaps these serious and ongoing economic problems are not temporary, but represent a fundamental breaking down of the American economic system. And that far from there being a recovery, things are in fact getting worse.

When millions of families are suffering in the midst of what is billed as a robust recovery, we should start looking closely at the possibility that the system itself is breaking down.

This goes far beyond the issue of employment. The Times ran a front-page article on Wednesday about Gov. George Pataki's proposed state budget. The ominous subheadline read: "Plan Relies on Gambling to Aid Poorest Schools."

I wrote a story last week about the tens of thousands of low-income youngsters in Florida who are eligible for a children's health insurance program but are being put on waiting lists. State officials say they can't afford to insure the kids now. In California, an estimated 300,000 eligible children are being shunted to similar waiting lists. No one knows when they might get coverage.

President Bush got at least one thing right on Tuesday night, when he said, "Americans are proving once again to be the hardest-working people in the world." Those who are fortunate enough to be employed often have to work long hours, or string together two and three jobs to make ends meet. They are working harder and harder just to keep from falling behind.

He quotes presidential candidate John Edwards.

In his "Two Americas" speech, Senator Edwards says there is: "One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. . . . One America — middle-class America — whose needs Washington has long forgotten. Another America — narrow-interest America — whose every wish is Washington's command."

But Edwards himself is a multi-millionaire lawyer. Is he really prepared to seriously address these problems, any real solution to which would inevitably impact upon his own financial situation? It's time to acknowledge that rich Democratic Senators are as much part of the problem as they are part of the solution. Especially the ones that are lawyers, such as Edwards, or the possessors of vast corporate wealth, such as Kerry, who is married to the heiress to the Heinz fortunes. They may mean well, but it is human nature not to cut your own throat.

  permalink, posted by mike on Friday, January 23, 2004 at 10:10 AM

January 22, 2004

Bush announces huge increase in homeland security spending.

The NY Times reports that Bush is proposing to spend yet another $30 billion dollar on so-called "homeland security," most of which is designed to implement permanent, ongoing surveillance of American citizens. That's what the "homeland" part refers to.

"I'm going to submit a budget to Congress next month which will include spending of $30 billion for homeland security, that's more than $30 billion — almost three times the amount that we were spending prior to Sept. 11, 2001," Mr. Bush told an audience at the New Mexico Military Institute in Roswell.

Specifics of Mr. Bush's proposals were not immediately available, and it is possible that they are still being worked on in the White House. But he said he envisioned an increase of almost 10 percent on homeland security throughout the government.

"We understand our obligation in Washington," Mr. Bush said. "Our obligation is never to forget what happened on September the 11th. And our obligation is to support the homeland security people, those on the front lines, to prepare for a potential threat."

The president used those remarks to call for Congressional renewal of legislation, passed soon after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, that broadens law enforcement's surveillance powers and makes it easier for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency to share information.

Critics of the legislation, called the Patriot Act by its supporters, have expressed fears that it could erode civil liberties, and that information-sharing by the C.I.A. and F.B.I.

Apparently, to "never forget" means that spending will continue forever. Regardless of whether or not there are any more attacks, or any real evidence of the existence of any so-called terrorist threat. And certainly American actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of any other effects they will have, good or bad, will help lead to the creation of new generations of people who hate the US.

I would have to assume that one of the primary targets of the increased surveillance will be the blogosphere. It's certainly where I would start.

  permalink, posted by mike on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at 05:27 PM

Clergy Leadership Network responds to Bush.

The Clergy Leadership Network, another excellent group I've never heard of, feels compelled, for spiritual and ethical reasons, not political ones, to respond to Bush's speech.

CLN (www.clnnlc.org) is a new interfaith movement of moderate and progressive clergy who are pursuing greater political participation as an expression of an inclusive faith and a religious social conscience.

"Just as the prophet Jeremiah spoke truth to power in ancient Judah, we find ourselves compelled, out of a sense of faith and patriotism, to give voice to our concerns about the integrity and well-being of our country.

"It comes as no surprise to us that George Bush should find the state of the union so healthy. For himself and those he associates with, times have surely never been better. That is because, in spiritual terms, his Administration has been one that has coddled the wealthy and catered to the powerful at the expense of desperate and even destitute people. While this Administration seeks to aggrandize the corporation and the profiteer, millions of God's children are plagued by unmet needs: the struggle to find jobs, to shelter their families, to educate their children, and to heal their illnesses.

"We reject domestic economic policies that favor the advantaged and pander to greed. The pursuit of such policies is irreconcilable with spiritual commitments and biblical convictions. But worse, to wrap these policies in a false cloak of 'compassion' moves into the arena of cynicism and public hypocrisy.

"Tonight, President Bush also defended - and even celebrated - his violent and unnecessary war in Iraq, which has brought so much human suffering to Americans and Iraqis alike. We share the President's goal of security for all our people. But faith teaches that security realized through conquest is no security at all. Only policies that affirm human dignity, provide for basic human needs, and create global partnerships can lay fair claim to having enhanced security for us and for all nations.

"Furthermore, it is unconscionable that public resources can be found to tear down and rebuild an entire society abroad, but when it comes to pressing human priorities here in our own communities, the nation's coffers have mysteriously run dry."

They go on. More intelligent speaking. And they're right. The worse thing about what Bush and company are doing is that they are doing it in the name of religion and God.

For another response to the speech, the Center for American Progress has a detailed, point-by-point analysis and rebuttal. Not only do they answer his false claims with specific facts, they offer lots of links to further material. Excellent work.

Both links via Wood s Lot. What excellent work they do. Tons of poetry and artwork there as well. It just goes on and on. And what I especially love about it, is that instead of "dumbing down" as they do in the US, the "smarten up." They assume you're intelligent, which is so refreshing. Incredibly inspirational. It's from Canada. Thank God they've kept their educational system alive, or North America would be in even worse shape than it is.

  permalink, posted by mike on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at 11:26 AM

Conservative Republicans push for spending slowdown.

The NY Times reports that some conservative Republicans are pushing to rein in federal spending a bit. Even though fiscal restraint is supposedly a hallmark of Republican thought, Bush's spending has become so out of hand that this is newsworthy.

A day after President Bush vowed to submit an austere budget and halve the deficit in five years, conservatives in his own party said on Wednesday that they were not satisfied and stepped up their campaign to force the White House and Republican leaders on Capitol Hill to do more to hold down the growth of government spending.

Forty Republican House members gathered to hash out how to press Mr. Bush and the Congressional leadership to deal with spending increases that they say are running out of control and a deficit that is reaching alarming proportions.

Their discomfort has been echoed in recent weeks by conservative researchers and commentators who support Mr. Bush on most issues. Among them are the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, a political action committee, and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page.

... "The Republican party has long been the party of small government," an aide to a senior Republican senator said, "but the era of small government has ended for the Republican Party."

Referring to Mr. Bush's call on Tuesday night for athletes to stop using performance-enhancing drugs, the aide said, "Unfortunately, the president's ban on steroids doesn't apply to the appropriators."

Ooh, sarcasm from conservatives. Well, more power to them. Anything that reins in this breakaway train is good. Unfortunately the major reason Bush is spending so much is that it's the only way he can keep in power, and because he needs to finance his out-of-control war machine. Does this mean that they're calling for cuts in the defense budget, which is by far the largest part of the federal budget?

It also appears that this is becoming a major election issue. But there's a curious poll quoted in the article.

But an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll this month found that Democrats had nearly caught up with Republicans on the question of which party does a better job of controlling government spending. The poll found that 33 percent of respondents said Republicans did a better job, with Democrats at 31 percent.

33 and 31 add up to 64. In other words, most people don't think either party does a very good job. So what do the other 36 percent think? That a third party would be the best choice?

  permalink, posted by mike on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at 09:05 AM

January 21, 2004

Press reviews of Bush's speech.

The Guardian offers a roundup of various American newspapers comments on President Bush's State of the Union speech. The title, 'A lousy way to run a country', a quote from the Chicago Tribune, I think, says it all. The comments seemed generally negative, although phrased politely. The Arizona Tribune though didn't seem to appreciate Ted Kennedy's reaction.

"Mr Bush was not the only politician on Capitol Hill Tuesday night who made his views clear. As the president began his speech, a camera focused on Senator Ted Kennedy, quite distinctly rolling his eyes in contempt of the president's words. Whatever their political differences, a lawmaker of Mr Kennedy's stature owes to the president - any president - a respectful hearing free of juvenile eye-rolling.

Hey, it's better than last year, when Kennedy was photographed sound asleep at his desk. :) Sorry, though. Bush doesn't deserve respect of any sort. He's a thug, a thief, a liar, and a killer; basically a gangster. Congress degrades itself by not tarring and feathering him on the spot.

If you're interested in how the Brits view American politics, the Guardian has a special section on the 2004 election. Personally I find the British view of America, and especially of American politics, almost comical. Basically as a larger version of England, with the same simplistic dichotomy of Left and Right (they always capitalize these, but Americans never do). And they actually seem to believe, as apparently much of the world does, the version of America presented by the movies and the media. But your mileage may vary.

One thing that's interesting though is that virtually every British columnist I've read seems utterly convinced Bush will win. I think it's the degree that they are willing to remain subservient to their monarchy, and their assumption that Americans are just as servile.

  permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 at 07:06 PM

What's wrong with asking what your country can do for you?

In a rebuttal to Bush's idiotic speech last night, House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle refer to the spirit of JFK's, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but rather what you can do for your country," although they quote another similar quote of his.

I've never liked this quote (and frankly have never liked the Kennedys either, who I think are one of the most corrupt families in the country). I think it's easy for wealthy people, like JFK, Bush and Pelosi (who is a very wealthy woman), who have no needs, to ask others to put aside their needs, and focus on those of the country's. That's an aristocratic notion, not a democratic one. But that's not what government is about. It's not what government is supposed to be for at all. The government was, and is, established in order to serve people's needs. And that's it. Not to be a "light to the world" or any other such nonsense. If people want to reform or save the world let them do it on their own time, and on their own dime. Not mine.

Bush is just JFK revisited. Both spoiled sons of rich men, who had everything handed to them on a silver platter, and who are apparently not at all aware that others have to work for everything they have, and maybe not are not all that willing to turn it over to others so that they can mouth moronic platitudes and promote their political careers. Notice that forty years after JFK, we now have a government that does nothing for us, but expects us to do everything for it. We still have to pay all of the taxes, we just get nothing for it in return. :) And this is supposed to be a good thing?

There's nothing wrong with asking what the country can do for you. It's not shameful to do that, it's honorable and praiseworthy and patriotic. It's supposed to be a "government of the people, by the people, and for the people." That's why we pay taxes, so that the government can do things for us, like providing schools, police protection and such. This idea that we exist in order to serve the government, and not the other way around, is totally incorrect, and is exactly what's wrong with this country, or more to the point, with what's wrong with the government. That's not freedom, that's slavery. It's time to turn this around, and demand to know exactly what the country is going to do for us, and if it isn't going to do anything to get rid of it. Period.

I also have to disagree with her statement that "The state of our union is indeed strong, due to the spirit of the American people - the creativity, optimism, hard work, and faith of everyday Americans." I think this is a major reason for all of the problems facing this country today. People continue to claim that everything is basically OK, but it's not. This country is in very bad shape, and getting worse. People are dying because of the lack of medical care. Dying. And until people are able to acknowledge and confront the problems it will continue to decline, and more and more people will suffer. I'm all for optimism, but not when that's used just to hide problems and to hide an inability and refusal to face the facts.

  permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 at 11:43 AM

Nice overview of recent revelations about Bush and Iraq.

Chris Floyd's column Metropolis, regularly published in the Moscow Times, this week offers a nice overview of the various reveleations recently made about the Bush administration, focusing on the fact now it's people like Colin Powell and Paul O'Neill, very much insiders, who are doing the Bush-bashing and acknowledging the many lies made.

Here's the article, reprinted here since the Moscow Times puts older articles behind its paywall, and because it's worth keeping around. He also gathers together a useful set of links to various articles on the subject.

"Murder, though it hath no tongue, will speak with most miraculous organ." -- Shakespeare, "Hamlet"

It's all out in the open now. The fact that the president of the United States and his top advisers deliberately concocted a false case for an illegal and unnecessary war -- in plain terms, that they committed cold-blooded, premeditated mass murder -- was confirmed last week by the most impeccable mainstream sources: George W. Bush's own Cabinet officials, speaking for the record in America's major media.

Remarkably, the "extremist views" and "paranoia" of the "lunatic fringe" -- those "Bush-bashers" who for months proclaimed that the Regime's lust to conquer Iraq was part of a long-planned scheme of looting and dominance that had nothing to do with September 11, 2001 or defending America from terror -- are now issuing from the mouths of the Regime's inner circle.

Secretary of State Colin Powell led the way. Powell, a pathetic bagman who began his career with a botched job of whitewashing war crimes in Vietnam (the My Lai massacre) and is ending it with a botched job of whitewashing war crimes in Iraq, admitted that there was no evidence of any past collusion between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida, The New York Times reports. Although the "very real" threat of Saddam passing on his vast arsenal of technodeath to Osama bin Laden was the most effective tool in the Regime's "sales program" for war, resonating viscerally with an American public still reeling from September 11, the genial general -- who loudly trumpeted this "threat" at the UN -- now says it was never anything more than a worrisome "possibility" without any basis in fact.

As well he might. For even had the mythical alliance of Bush bogeymen actually existed, that "vast arsenal of technodeath" did not. There were no Iraqi weapons of mass destruction to pass on; there were not even any active programs to develop WMD. This has long been obvious from reading between the lines of the reports of Bush's own weapon-hunters, but it was finally made manifest in an extraordinary report last week in The Washington Post.

There, leaders of Bush's CIA-directed weapons search team admitted publicly that Iraq's WMD program was shattered in the first Gulf War -- 13 years ago -- and its remnants completely dismantled in 1995. This was, of course, long-known (and oft-reported by "Bush-bashers") before the latest war -- indeed, it was even reported in the mainstream media years ago, which is where the paranoiacs on the lunatic fringe found it, in easily accessible archives and Congressional reports. But it was conveniently forgotten in the profitable, corporate-driven war fever before the invasion. Now, after the murder of thousands of innocent people, including almost 500 American soldiers, the truth re-emerges -- again from the mouths of Bush's own hirelings.

Then came the revelations of Paul O'Neill, Bush's treasury secretary until December 2002. In a nationally televised interview, O'Neill confirmed that Bush and his minions were planning the invasion of Iraq from the moment they took office -- months before 9-11. "[It was] the president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this,'" said O'Neill, whose eye-openers are featured in a new book by Ron Suskind of the archconservative Wall Street Journal.

Although the Regime's hatchet men are now desperately downplaying O'Neill's importance, questioning his sanity, even threatening to prosecute him, he was very much in the leadership loop: a member of the powerful National Security Council, privy to top-secret intelligence. He says he never saw "anything in the intelligence that I would characterize as real evidence" of an Iraqi threat -- just a muddy stream of "assertions and illusions." Suskind also unearthed early Bushist memos detailing the predators' postwar designs for Iraq, including extensive military occupation and -- in March 2001 -- plans for parceling out Iraq's oil wealth to favored corporations and foreign allies, CBSNews.com reports.

Again, this is old news for lunatic fringers. As often reported here, the Cheney-Rumsfeld pressure group, Project for the New American Century, long ago outlined its program for America's "full spectrum dominance" over the globe, with the planting of a "military footprint" throughout oil-rich Central Asia and the Middle East. Indeed, conquering Iraq was an imperative that "transcended the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein," said PNAC; whether he was there or not, whether the Iraqi people needed "liberating" or not, the invasion would go forward. PNAC, whose members now fill the Regime's upper ranks, also yearned openly for a "new Pearl Harbor," a devastating sneak attack that would "catalyze" public support for the group's "revolutionary transformation" of American society into a militarized aggressor state.

This is no "conspiracy theory." PNAC's maniacal manifesto was published in broad daylight in September 2000 -- but was ignored by that same corporatized American media that later proved so helpfully amnesiac after the "new Pearl Harbor" was launched by the CIA's old allies from the Afghan jihad, led by a scion of the Bush family's business partners, the bin Ladens. (This long-documented family connection was detailed by Republican strategist and former Nixon aide Kevin Phillips in the Los Angeles Times last week -- yet another belated mainstreaming of the "lunatic fringe.")

Thus the Regime's shifting rationales for war -- terror threats, WMD, concern for the Iraqi people -- have now been publicly exposed, by the Bushists themselves as nothing more than lies, flimsy excuses to commit murder for power and gain. Where, then, is the "fringe," that blighted place beyond the pale of reason and human decency?

Who, then, are the lunatics?

Annotations:

"Dead Cities: And Other Tales," -- Mike Davis, New Press Paperback, October 2003.

"Iraq's Arsenal Was Only on Paper," -- Washington Post, Jan. 6, 2004.

"Powell Admits No Hard Proof Linking Iraq to al Qaeda," -- New York Times, Jan. 9, 2004.

"Saddam Ouster Planned in Early 2001," -- CBSNews.com, Jan. 9, 2004.

"The Barreling Bushes," -- Los Angeles Times, Jan. 11, 2004.

"The Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush," -- Kevin Phillips interview, Buzzflash.com, Jan. 4, 2004.

"Rebuilding America's Defenses," -- Project for the New American Century, September 2000.

"Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Vietnam Lessons," -- Consortiumnews.com, Dec. 17, 2000.

"Behind Colin Powell's Legend: Saving Ronald Reagan," -- Consortiumnews.com, Dec. 20, 2000.

"Bush Decided to Remove Saddam 'On Day One,' -- The Guardian, Jan. 12, 2004.

"Bush Was Demanding Excuse to Invade Iraq in January 2001," -- The Independent, Jan. 12, 2004.

"White House Distorted Iraq Threat," -- Financial Times, Jan. 7, 2004.

"US Withdraws a Team of Weapons Hunters From Iraq," -- New York Times, Jan. 8, 2004.

"Mounting Evidence Shows Iraq Didn't Have WMD," -- Boston Globe, Jan. 9, 2004.

"Bush and Democracy Hypocrisy," -- Consortiumnews.com, Jan. 5, 2004.

"US to Saddam: WMD A-OK," -- The Nation, Dec. 30, 2003.

"Study by Army War College Criticizes Terror War's Scope," -- Washington Post, Jan. 11, 2004.

  permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 at 10:53 AM

January 14, 2004

Cheney target of French criminal investigation.

Via Alternet.org is this report by David J. Sirota of The Progress Report that Vice President Cheney is the target of a French criminal investigation relating to bribes paid by Haliburton while he was its CEO.

Though neglected by major media in the United States, international news sources report that French law enforcement authorities have made Vice President Dick Cheney the target of a criminal investigation for his role in a massive bribery scandal during his time as CEO of Halliburton. Le Figaro, one of France's biggest (and most conservative) newspapers, reports "an investigative judge is looking into allegations of corruption during construction of a natural gas complex in Nigeria by Halliburton and a French oil company."

According to a gas and oil trade publication (picked up by the international AP newswire on October 11, 2003) the judge is "looking into who may have benefited from nearly $200 million in potentially illegal commissions allegedly handed out from 1990 to 2002." In May, Halliburton admitted that, under Cheney's stewardship, it paid "$2.4 million in bribes to Nigerian officials to get favorable tax treatment." Halliburton now says it is cooperating with a simultaneous review by the Security and Exchange Commission.

The London Financial Times reports the investigation specifically focuses on the criminal charges of "misuse of corporate funds" and "corruption of foreign public agents." The Sydney Australia Morning Herald reports the investigative judge is specifically targeting Cheney for his "alleged complicity in the abuse of corporate assets."

Though the investigation is being spearheaded by French law enforcement, the UK Guardian notes, it would be prosecuted under international laws agreed to by the United States in a 35-nation treaty signed in 1997, meaning the consequences could be very real. The treaty, "under the auspices of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, aims to fight corporate attempts to buy the favors of public authorities abroad." Not coincidentally, the London Financial Times points out that the Bush Administration is using similar agreements to aggressively "seek the extradition and pressing claims against senior French finance industry executives connected with the Credit Lyonnais purchase of Executive Life, the failed Californian insurer."

That the VP of the US is the target of a criminal investigation is major news, and it's beyond scandalous that the American media is not covering it. Especially during an election year. The same as its refusal to cover the similar charges against Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berloscuoni. Rest assured though that we'll hear all about Michael Jackson's trial, including every detail, down to what he wears.

  permalink, posted by mike on Wednesday, January 14, 2004 at 08:28 PM

January 13, 2004

Four generations of Bushes and mideast oil.

Kevin Phillips has written a new book on the Bushes, "American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush." In a commentary for the LA Times, The Barreling Bushes [reg req'd], he offers a good overview of four generations of ever increasing involvement in the mideast, the oil business, the arms trade there and other places, and, of course, in American politics. The worst of them, by far, is George H.W. Bush, an almost inconceivably corrupt person.

Dynasties in American politics are dangerous. We saw it with the Kennedys, we may well see it with the Clintons and we're certainly seeing it with the Bushes. Between now and the November election, it's crucial that Americans come to understand how four generations of the current president's family have embroiled the United States in the Middle East through CIA connections, arms shipments, rogue banks, inherited war policies and personal financial links.

As early as 1964, George H.W. Bush, running for the U.S. Senate from Texas, was labeled by incumbent Democrat Ralph Yarborough as a hireling of the sheik of Kuwait, for whom Bush's company drilled offshore oil wells. Over the four decades since then, the ever-reaching Bushes have emerged as the first U.S. political clan to thoroughly entangle themselves with Middle Eastern royal families and oil money. The family even has links to the Bin Ladens — though not to family black sheep Osama bin Laden — going back to the 1970s.

How these unusual relationships helped bring about 9/11 and then distorted the U.S. response to Islamic terrorism requires thinking of the Bush family as a dynasty. The two Bush presidencies are inextricably linked by that dynasty.

The first family member lured by the Middle East's petroleum wealth was George W. Bush's great-grandfather, George H. Walker, a buccaneer who was president of Wall Street-based W.A. Harriman & Co. In the 1920s, Walker and his firm participated in rebuilding the Baku oil fields only a few hundred miles north of current-day Iraq. As senior director of Dresser Industries (now part of Halliburton), Walker's son-in-law Prescott Bush (George W. Bush's grandfather) became involved with the Middle East in the years after World War II. But it was George H.W. Bush, the current president's father, who forged the dynasty's strongest ties to the region.

George H.W. Bush was the first CIA director to come from the oil industry. He went on to became the first vice president — and then the first president — to have either an oil or CIA background. This helps to explain his persistent bent toward the Middle East, covert operations and rogue banks like the Abu Dhabi-based Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which came to be known by the nickname "Bank of Crooks and Criminals International." In each of the government offices he held, he encouraged CIA involvement in Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other Middle Eastern countries, and he pursued policies that helped make the Middle East into the world's primary destination for arms shipments.

Taking the CIA helm in January 1976, Bush cemented strong relations with the intelligence services of both Saudi Arabia and the shah of Iran. He worked closely with Kamal Adham, the head of Saudi intelligence, brother-in-law of King Faisal and an early BCCI insider. After leaving the CIA in January 1977, Bush became chairman of the executive committee of First International Bancshares and its British subsidiary, where, according to journalists Peter Truell and Larry Gurwin in their 1992 book "False Profits," Bush "traveled on the bank's behalf and sometimes marketed to international banks in London, including several Middle Eastern institutions."

Once in the White House, first as vice president to Ronald Reagan and later as president, George H.W. Bush was linked to at least two Middle East-centered scandals. It's never been entirely clear what Bush's connection was to the Iran-Contra affair, in which clandestine arms shipments to Iran, some BCCI-financed, helped illegally fund the operations of the anti-Sandinista Contra rebels in Nicaragua. But in 1992, special prosecutor Lawrence E. Walsh asserted that Bush, despite his protestations, had indeed been "in the loop" on multiple illegal acts.

Much clearer was Bush's pivotal role, both as vice president and president, in "Iraqgate," the hidden aid provided by the U.S. and its military to Saddam Hussein's Iraq in its high-stakes war with Iran during the 1980s. The U.S. is known to have provided both biological cultures that could have been used for weapons and nuclear know-how to the regime, as well as conventional weapons. As ABC-TV broadcaster Ted Koppel put it in a June 1992 "Nightline" program after the 1991 Persian Gulf War: "It is becoming increasingly clear that George [H.W.] Bush, operating largely behind the scenes through the 1980s, initiated and supported much of the financing, intelligence and military help that built Saddam's Iraq into the aggressive power that the United States ultimately had to destroy."

That's really something. The degree to which all of this contributed to 9/11 is still unknown, particularly due to George W. Bush's steady refusal to block efforts to investigate and to release sections of reports related to it all. But given that the majority of those responsible for the attack were Saudis, and given the very close and long ties of the Bush family to the Saudi royal family, one can only wonder. Where's there's smoke there's fire. The fact that the Bush family has a long history of business ties to the Bin Laden family is well established.

Bolder critics hinted that George W. Bush had sought to shift attention away from how his family's ties to the Bin Ladens and to rogue elements in the Middle East had crippled U.S. investigations in the months leading up to 9/11. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) complained that even when Congress released the mid-2003 intelligence reports on the origins of the 9/11 attack, the Bush administration heavily redacted a 28-page section dealing with the Saudis and other foreign governments, leading him to conclude, "There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis."

There is no evidence to suggest that the events of Sept. 11 could have been prevented or discovered ahead of time had someone other than a Bush been president. But there is certainly enough to suggest that the Bush dynasty's many decades of entanglement and money-hunting in the Middle East have created a major conflict of interest that deserves to be part of the 2004 political debate. No previous presidency has had anything remotely similar. Not one.

One aspect of this that is not mentioned, and which is never mentioned, is the degree to which business with the Arabs helped, and continues to help, finance their wars against Israel. The Saudis have certainly been supporting and financing the Palestinians, and the fact that the Bushes have never been bothered by this, and have continued to help arm them says something. But no one talks about that.

Everyone's desperate to show how evil Saddam was. But while there is no evidence of WMDs, there is indisputable proof of that he made payments to Palestinian suicide bombers. Proof positive of this was found at Arafat's headquarters when the Israelis bulldozed it in 2002. But even those who hate him don't want to mention this. There's no mention of Jews or Israel in the article.

On the other hand, one of the few things, maybe the only thing, that I admire about George W. Bush is the fact that he stood by Israel when the bombs were flying during the past few years. So it's not all that easy. The Democrats' record certainly isn't any less anti-Semitic.

  permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 at 07:36 PM

Krugman discusses O'Neill's revelations.

I've already made several entries on the many revelations contained in former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's recently published insider account of machinations inside the Bush administration. NY Times columnist Paul Krugman further reviews it today, The Awful Truth, an interesting discussion, which stresses the point that this criticism doesn't come from any "crazed leftie", or even a Democrat, but from a long-time corporate insider, a former CEO of Alcoa Corp., and a long-time Republican who has served in three Republican adminstrations.

I won't quote it since it's worth reading in full, but I have to note the part where O'Neill reveals that FED Chairman Alan Greenspan himself admitted back in 2001 that Bush's tax cuts constituted ""irresponsible fiscal policy." At a time when critics of them were being reviled and ridiculed. Since Greenspan is Wall Street's "Golden Boy" perhaps this will cause at least a few folks to think twice about continuing to support this administration.

My other posts on the subject are here, here and here.

  permalink, posted by mike on Tuesday, January 13, 2004 at 10:42 AM

January 12, 2004

Lane County, Oregon, no longer has any police investigating property crimes.

In a stunning example of how American efforts to promote national security are in fact endangering the security of Americans where they actually live, the Eugene Register-Guard reports that budget cuts have completely eliminated funds for investigating crimes against property in the parts of the county outside Eugene city limits. No fund to fight property crimes. The true story of "security" in Bush's America.

Once upon a time, the Lane County sheriff's office had two detectives dedicated to investigating property crimes.

Budget cuts soon lowered that number to one - Detective Tim Roos, who in the 70 percent of his workday allotted to investigating property crimes, tried his best to track down suspects and deliver cases to the district attorney.

But Roos retired in July and headed to Bosnia to help establish a civilian police force there. His position was eliminated in last year's budget process, and the agency has no plans to hire a replacement, police services Capt. Bret Freeman said.

There's no money for it, Freeman said, and there may be even less money in the future if outgoing county board chairman Peter Sorenson is correct. In his county address last week, Sorenson predicted $4.6 million in countywide across-the-board cuts in the coming year.

Currently, county residents who report burglaries, car thefts, identity theft, vandalism or other property crimes have a very slim chance of ever seeing an arrest in their cases.

"It's not that we don't want to help people," Freeman said. "It's that we cannot help people."

Victims are lucky if a deputy even shows up to take a report these days. Instead, they're often instructed to download a report form from the county's Web site and mail it in, or they can request a form be mailed to them, Freeman said.

Patrol deputies who have time between emergency calls try to follow up as much as they can, but with an average of two deputies and one sergeant patrolling 4,618 square miles of unincorporated land, there's not a lot of opportunity for investigation, the captain said.

So if your house is broken into, they can't even investigate it. Well, I feel much safer knowing that. And I wonder what criminals reading this would think. And it was the lead article on the front page of the Sunday edition, so I'm sure they saw it. That's really great.

But I guess, since it's not New York City, which is as far from here as Moscow is from London, security doesn't matter. We're just a third world colony anyway, so what's the difference? I mean, it's not like we live in New Hampshire or Iowa or have any say in who's running the country.

And Bush wants to spend trillions to go to the moon and Mars, something that is directly aimed at his corporate aerospace constituencies in Texas and California. While Oregon's schools are (have already, actually) eliminating science programs. Forget about funds for telescopes and such. School kids don't vote or contribute to politicians.

And I love that part about the police officer going off to establish police forces in Bosnia. That's precious. And where is the money for that coming from? American tax dollars paid in part by the citizens of Oregon? I wonder.

"I'm not going to try to foretell the future," Freeman said. "But additional reductions in money means additional reductions in service."

  permalink, posted by mike on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 10:55 AM

Safire offers spin control on Bush foreign policy.

William Safire, long-time Republican spinmeister, going back to his days on Nixon's staff, offers an interesting spin on the progress Bush has made in his war on the world, Spinning Into Control. (Sorry, but I can't resist calling it spin since he actually uses the word in the title. :)) He actually makes some good points, and unlike all of the Bush-bashers, I'm perfectly willing to admit that not everything he does is horrible.

The strategic reason for crushing Saddam was to reverse the tide of global terror that incubated in the Middle East.

Is our pre-emptive policy working? Was the message sent by ousting the Baathists as well as the Taliban worth the cost?

Since I don't think that there's a "tide of global terror", which he how he begins, I can't say I agree with how he reasons from that. A single attack over two years ago hardly constitutes a "global tide," and it's about time the folks in New York got over it and admitted that.

His callous dismissal of what's happening in Iraq is rather frightening. A classic piece of spin.

In Iraq, where casualties in Baghdad could be compared to civilian losses to everyday violence in New York and Los Angeles, a rudimentary federal republic is forming itself with all the customary growing pains. After the new Iraq walks by itself, we can expect free Iraqis to throw their crutches at the doctor. But we did not depose Saddam to impose a puppet; we are helping Iraqis defeat the diehards and resist fragmentation to set in place a powerful democratic example.

No worse than in NY or LA? You'll have to judge the accuracy of that for yourself. I wouldn't know where to begin. And if the US is so committed to democracy in Iraq, why is it so resolutely fighting Iraqi demands for direct elections? Something that is being led by Muslim clerics, no less, which, in Safire's world-view, should be the last people to want that. See this NY Times article, Direct Election of Iraq Assembly Pushed By Cleric, on that subject. No, the US wants "caucuses," which it can more easily control. "Puppets" are exactly what it's trying for. But I guess the feeling is that since Iowa is still stuck in the 19th century, so should Iraq and the rest of the world.

He seems to focus on recent moves by Libya, Iran and others to open up to UN weapons inspectors as indication of progress. What he ignores is the fact that Bush's policies have caused a major new global arms race to begin. India, Russia and other countries are building up their arsenals. And the fact that his hostility to others throughout the world is creating a new generation of people who hate the US, something that will have devastating effects for generations to come.

But he's an old man. He won't be around to pay the staggering costs of these wars, all financed by borrowing on the future. He won't be around in ten, twenty or thirty years when someone whose family was killed in Iraq or Afghanistan freaks out and blows up something in the US, the UK or elsewhere. He concludes:

The columnist Jim Hoagland cautions that it is too early to proclaim that nonproliferation is "spinning into control." But taken together, this phased array of fallout to our decision to lead the world's war against terror makes the case that what we have been doing is strategically sound as well as morally right. 

Strategically sound is questionable. Only in the short term, not in the long term. But "morally right?" I beg to differ. There's nothing moral about lying, about killing children, about violating international law, about beginning a global arms race, about closing schools and hospitals in the US to finance death and destruction, about stealing money from future generations, about throwing the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights in the trash. Not even close. And he knows it too.

And the fact is that hardly anyone in the world, including most Americans, wants or needs the US to be the world's policeman, or to use violence to force its views and values on everyone. He claims its about "democracy." But he knows that in any fair vote of all of the people in the world, these policies would be soundly rejected.

Why do you think Bush never dared formally asked the US Senate to formally declare war against Iraq, as the constitution specifically requires? Because he knew damn well it would not have passed.

And let's wait until we actually see functioning democracies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria, all examples he gives, before we pass judgment and proclaim success. And I mean real democracies, including full and equal rights for women, which, in my opinion, would have to include rights to half of the profits of all of that oil. Afghanistan has a constitution, true. But, just like the American one, the women there had no say in it. That's not democracy. It's the perpetuation of the same system under a different name. Slightly modernized, but still the same.

And, as a Jew, I would have to wait for the closing of the madrasas that continue to promote the vilest form of Jew-hating, in the guise of education, before I think anything has really changed.

And, as an American, I'm much more concerned with the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons by the warmongers in the US and the UK than I am anywhere else. These represent a genuine and lasting threat to world peace, and it's time that people, especially the Democratic candidates for president, acknowledged that.

  permalink, posted by mike on Monday, January 12, 2004 at 10:47 AM

January 11, 2004

Confessions of a white house insider.

Time Magazine reviews and discusses Ron Suskind's new book on former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill's revelations about his time in the Bush White House, "The Price of Loyalty: George W. Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O'Neill."

I mentioned some of what O'Neill has to say in two prior posts, here and here. But this article goes into more detail and offers a chilling glimpse of a president and vice president that apparently couldn't care less what anybody else thinks, including their own closest advisors and supporters. The degree of their arrogance is chilling, even after several years of getting used to it.

So, what does O'Neill reveal? According to the book, ideology and electoral politics so dominated the domestic-policy process during his tenure that it was often impossible to have a rational exchange of ideas. The incurious President was so opaque on some important issues that top Cabinet officials were left guessing his mind even after face-to-face meetings. Cheney is portrayed as an unstoppable force, unbowed by inconvenient facts as he drives Administration policy toward his goals.

O'Neill's tone in the book is not angry or sour, though it prompted a tart response from the Administration. "We didn't listen to him when he was there," said a top aide. "Why should we now?"

There are many revelations here, about the tax cuts, the war in Iraq, WMDs, plans for corporate governance in the wake of Enron and the other corporate scandals, and more. O'Neill is a genuine insider, having served in three administrations, and besides his time in the Treasury Department, also served on the National Security Council.

You really have to read the entire thing, especially if you still think that re-electing Bush could possibly be good for the country. Or even that Bush cares about the country at all. The picture here is of a man who cares only about politics and ideology, and courting his corporate constituency, no matter the effect on the rest of the world. Frightening.

  permalink, posted by mike on Sunday, January 11, 2004 at 08:37 PM

On Dean's electability.

Writing in the New York Observer, Gloomy Predictions Sound Very Familiar, Joe Conason makes some relevant comments about Dr. Dean's electability, and about all of those claims that he's not "electable." In particular, he points out that all of these same comments were made about Clinton in 1992, and that Clinton was even farther behind the polls against Bush I at this point in the election cycle, than Dean currently is against Bush II.

And a third top Democratic consultant hints that disaster is looming: "The negatives are forming on him like a political stalactite, drop by drop. The halls of Congress are filled with Democrats wringing their hands over their prospective nominee."

The former Democratic Mayor of New York describes his party’s leading candidate as "so flawed" that he has "no possibility of … defeating President Bush."

They must be talking about Howard Dean.

Actually, all those remarks were uttered about Bill Clinton in the spring of 1992, only months before he overcame a 20-point deficit to defeat George Herbert Walker Bush. In 2004, the same people—some forthrightly quoted by name, others merely by occupation—are saying many of the same things about the former Vermont Governor that they once said about Mr. Clinton in 1992.

All quite accurate. But one observation and conclusion that he doesn't make, and that very few others seem to realize, is that the perception of him as an "outsider" who is not electable stems largely from the fact that Dean isn't centered in Washington, D.C., and that he has never held any federal position (eg, Senator, Congressman or General). Apparently the pundits in the NY-DC beltway simply can't conceive of anyone outside their narrow little world being elected.

This may make sense on the face of it, but what's extraordinary about it is that it ignores the fact that four of the last five presidents, including the current incumbent, had never held any of those positions. While there are a lot of differences between Carter, Reagan, Clinton and Bush I, to say the least, one thing they all had in common is that they were all former state governors who had never held any sort of federal position. (Bush I held several federal positions, but all appointed, except his single term as Congressman. He really only made it because he was VP, and came in on Reagan's coattails. His own campaigns failed dismally.) Which continues probably the most significant trend in the history of the presidency: that more of them were former governors than anything else.

That so many so-called political experts would miss this basic fact of American history amazes me. But the fact is that the American people see being governor of a state as the best job prep for being president, and that they strongly favor them over US Senators or Congressman. During the 20th century only two sitting Senators made it to the White House, Harding and Kennedy. And no sitting Congressman has made it since Lincoln. And only two generals in the last 150 years, Grant and Eisenhower. And to further damage Clark's prospects, only one person who had never held an elected office, Hoover. No, it's governors, over and over again. Both Roosevelts, as well.

So, far from being an outsider or an insurgent, Dean would seem to be in the most basic mainstream of American politics. And history would indicate that he clearly has the best chance of any of the other candidates. Indeed, that he is the ONLY one who has any chance. The fact is, that Americans have grown to so distrust the federal government that they won't even CONSIDER anyone who has ever been part of it as a candidate for President. Especially US Senators, who are now considered the most corrupt people in the country, both Democratic and Republican. That's why Americans continue to send people from outside the federal government. You would think they would get the message.

So it would seem that most political pundits aren't familiar with even the most basic facts of the history of American politics. Another trend that the experts won't acknowledge is that there is a massive flow of power going on from the federal government back to the states. That's why state governors do so well. But the folks in DC are so out of touch with the reality of what ordinary Americans feel that they can't see this at all.

And that's why Dean is going to win. I'm not saying that I particularly like him, can't say that I do. But he's very definitely electable.

  permalink, posted by mike on Sunday, January 11, 2004 at 12:39 PM

January 10, 2004

NY Times says war and economy no longer major election issues.

In an article on the election campaign in Iowa the NY Times makes the extraordinary statement that the war in Iraq and the economy are no longer significant issues. Which is certainly news to me, and certainly not what my reading of the mood of the American electorate indicates.

The Iowa caucus contest is ending in an electoral environment quite different from what Democrats expected when planning for this moment a year ago. At the time, the nation was embroiled in a debate over whether to go to war, and the economy was in a downturn.

But by a number of measures, the economy appears to be recovering, and it is certainly less of an issue than Democrats had hoped it might be now. In a poll of likely Democratic caucusgoers conducted by The Chicago Tribune and The Los Angeles Times and released on Saturday, a third said the economy is now doing well.

And with Saddam Hussein captured, the subject of the war, which more than anything else has framed this contest, accounting for Dr. Dean's rise and the difficulties of Mr. Gephardt and Mr. Kerry, appears to be commanding less attention. Thus, the candidates and their aides were more likely to be focusing on tactics and strategy than, say, the problems facing the next occupant of the White House.

I can't believe that they say the economy is not an issue. And that they claim that the rising stock market means it is no longer in a "downturn." Notice how they work the spin. "A third said the economy is now doing well." Which means that two-thirds think that it is still doing badly. Last time I looked a two-thirds majority was more than enough to win an election. And given a jobs report just this week that said only 1,000 jobs were created, and during the holiday shopping season, when the economists had predicted 150,000, I would say that there's still plenty of pain out there.

But even more amazing is the claim that since Saddam was captured the war is no longer of concern to Americans. With several major attacks just this week, including the near downing of a major transport plane, I'd have to say that the war is still going strong. And I'm sure that the Iowans whose sons and daughters are over there are still concerned.

They keep repeating that Dean's rise is due mostly to his "opposition" to the war, which I would say is a bit of an over-exaggeration. But they like to frame things in single issue context, which makes spinning them easier, and so Dean is oversimplified as an "antiwar" candidate. But it's much more complicated than that. But they want to paint him as a "McGovern", and ascribe his support among younger voters as a replay of the sixties. Again, it's easier to oversimplify. Personally I think most of them are more concerned about the devastating effects of the rising deficits, which their generation will have to pay off. Not to mention many other things, such as health care.

They're just terrified of Dean. Could it be that his comments suggesting that he may pursue anti-trust action against the large media conglomerates, including considering breaking the biggest ones up, have something to do with that?

Personally, I think this obsession with New Hampshire and Iowa is quite obsolete, a throwback to presidential politics of a century ago. I don't think that either state is that significant, or that the outcome of their elections is anywhere as important as it used to be. Things have changed. If they didn't happen to be first, I don't think they'd hardly be mentioned at all. It just shows how out of touch American politics has gotten with the realities of 21s