JULY 12, 2005

RUMSFELD HAS STRETCHED ARMY TOO THIN

Donald Rumsfeld fancies himself some kind of 21st century Napoleon, but he doesn't quite measure up. A new Army study shows that the army is stretched too thin fighting wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan and it would be difficult for the Army to respond to a new crisis. Rumsfeld and the Bush administration are not protecting the country. They are putting us more at risk. This story by Michael Kilian is at www.timesleader.com:

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has consistently rejected any contention that the Army is stretched too thin in fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a new Army study has concluded the service is so strained that the United States will soon "need to decide what military capabilities the Army should have and what risks may be prudent to assume."

Numerous critics and outside defense policy groups have warned that the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan has taxed the Army so badly that it will have difficulty meeting any new crises elsewhere, but the new assessment comes from an in-house undertaking prepared by the RAND Corp.'s Arroyo Center, the Army's own federally funded research institute.

BUSH AND ROVE COMPROMISED INTELLIGENCE FOR PARTISAN REASONS

The evidence is mounting that George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. It is also apparent that the leak was in retaliation for Joseph Wilson exposing the lie that Iraq tried to buy weapons grade uranium from Niger. The leak comprised U.S. intelligence and put the lives of many people at risk. This was all done for partisan political reasons and that is inexcusable. This article by Robert Scheer is at www.latimes.com:

In the end, though, what Rove's leak and Novak's column really exposed was the depravity of the administration's deliberate use of a false WMD threat and its willingness to go after anyone willing to tell the truth about it.

It's ironic that the expertise of this couple should be turned against them by a White House that has demonstrated nothing but incompetence in dealing with the WMD issue. But clearly truth and competence are virtues easily shed by the Bush administration in the pursuit of political advantage, even when this partisan game jeopardizes national security.

This is the most important issue raised by the Plame scandal. It has been unfortunately obscured by the secondary debate in the case: whether reporters should ever reveal their sources. Yet what the emerging Rove scandal demonstrates is the ease with which a wily top White House official can subvert the Bill of Rights' protection of the free press to serve the tawdriest of political ends.

THE RIGHT WING'S CALLOUS RESPONSE TO LONDON BOMBINGS

Sometimes you have to believe that right-wingers aren't quite human. They use any opportunity, even if it's a tragedy like the London bombings, to advocate greed, materialism, and militarism. They never fail to stereotype entire groups of people because of the actions of a few. This article by Sheldon Rampton looks at some of the recent right-wing buffoonery. The article is at www.counterpunch.org:

While we're on the topic of cheap opportunism, Media Matters has video from the Fox News network, where commentator Brit Hume said his first response to the bombings was to consider "bargain-hunting" on the stock market, which he figured would be depressed by the news. According to Hume, "my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, 'Hmmm, time to buy.'"

Of course, the accusation of "cheap opportunism," along with the other name-calling directed at Galloway, is itself a cheap tactic, an example of the old rhetorical strategy known as "killing the messenger." Rather than address the substance of Galloway's comments, his attackers want to divert attention away from his arguments and focus instead on allegations about his character or personality. According to PropagandaCritic, a useful website of propaganda techniques, "The name-calling technique links a person, or idea, to a negative symbol. The propagandist who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative symbol, instead of looking at the available evidence." The appropriate response to this rhetorical strategy is to ask yourself, "Leaving the name out of consideration, what are the merits of the idea itself?"

WAS BUSH INEVITABLE?

That's the question raised by this article. Adolf Hitler was a natural consequence of the disaster of World War I and the harsh sanctions imposed on Germany after the war. In a time when our populace has been dumbed down, the AM airwaves captured by the right wing, and the corporate media putting out a steady of stream of mind candy, taking away the temptation to use critical thinking, maybe Bush is just a natural consequence of it all. This article by Ben Tripp is linked at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Bush is only the latest of many such necessary evildoers. There's always somebody. Hitler, an even more egregious schmekel than G.W. Bush, was the inevitable instrument of the destruction of Europe as it had been known for a thousand years. Things simply could not remain as they were, and he saw to it that they didn't. The Great War wasn't enough of a hint for those old countries whose pastime it had long been to annex each other and swap royal bloodlines, feeding their various empires on the flesh of distant lands. So along came Hitler with WWII. Unfortunately America, which came late to both World Wars, got to feeling superior and decided an empire could be done properly: it just needed to be run by folks that were elected, not handed the job through fortunate birth. We set about the task, our elected leaders passing the torch from one grasping claw to the next, and built up a pretty good portfolio of client states and resource-rich territories outside our borders. That showed those old-Europe types!

JULY 11, 2005

BUSH'S MISBEGOTTEN IRAQ FANTASY

Bob Herbert lists just some of the reasons the Iraq was is wrong. We could name:

*The war was a lie from the very beginning. Iraq wasn't a threat to the United States and had no ties to Osama bin Laden.

*We're spending billions of dollars that could be better spent at home to improve our infrastructure, secure retirements for the Baby Boom generation, build affordable housing, find alternative energy sources to break our dependence on oil, clean up the environment, and invest in education.

*Over 1,700 of our military have been killed for questionable reasons. Thousands more have been maimed.

*Countless innocent civilians have been killed or maimed in Iraq.

*Iraq is now a magnet for aspiring terrorists to learn their craft and then disperse all over the world.

This column is at www.nytimes.com:

Americans are paying a fearful price for Mr. Bush's adventure in Iraq. In addition to the toll of dead and wounded, the war is costing about $5 billion a month. It has drained resources from critical needs here at home, including important antiterror initiatives that would improve the security of ports, transit systems and chemical plants.

The war has diminished the stature and weakened the credibility of the United Sates around the world. And it has delivered a body blow to the readiness of America's armed forces. Much of the military is now overdeployed, undertrained and overworked. Many of the troops are serving multiple tours in Iraq. No wonder potential recruits are staying away in droves.

DROWNING IN RED INK

Things are so bad with the Bush administration that you hear about a budget deficit, while gigantic,that isn't as big as the projected deficit. We're drowning, but just not as fast. Paul Krugman takes a look at our budget quagmire in this column at www.nytimes.com:

The usual suspects on the right are already declaring victory over the deficit, and proclaiming vindication for the Laffer Curve - the claim that tax cuts pay for themselves, because they have such a miraculous effect on the economy that revenue actually goes up.

But the fact is that revenue remains far lower than anyone would have predicted before the tax cuts began. In January 2001 the budget office forecast revenues of $2.57 trillion in fiscal 2005. Even with the recent increase in receipts, the actual number will be at least $400 billion less.

THE ESTATE TAX DOESN'T HURT SMALL FARMERS

Any time Republicans start sounding like populists grab your wallet and hold on with all your might. Republicans have spun the estate tax as the "death tax," crying crocodile tears over those poor hard-working small farmers who worked hard all their lives and had their estates taken by the big bad government. It makes for nice drama, but it's not true. David Cay Johnston, one of the best analysts of taxes, has taken a look. This column talks about Johnston's findings. The column is at www.thenation.com:

Remember back in June 2001, Bush said he'd talked to farmers who told him the estate tax (or in GOP doublespeak, "the death tax") had destroyed their family farms? And you know all those Republican spinners like Grover Norquist and Frank Luntz who prattle on about how the estate tax is destroying family farming? Well, according to a Congressional Budget Office report released last week, they're not telling us the truth. Listen to Neil E. Harl, an economics professor at Iowa State University whose expertise in estate tax planning for farmers has made him a household name in the farm belt: The Congressional study, Harl tells Johnston, "adds to the weight of the evidence that this is a myth that has been well-spun."

According to Johnston, the CBO study contradicts assertions that the estate tax burdens family farms. Its findings show that "the number of farms on which estate tax is owed when the owners die has fallen by 82 percent since 2000, to just 300 farms, as Congress has more than doubled the threshold at which the tax applies."

JULY 9 and 10, 2005

DUBYA: WORST PRESIDENT EVER

In our history the United States has survived some incredibly bad presidents. Before there were nuclear missiles, airplanes, and submarines we could survive a bad president more easily than we can in an age with satellites and missiles that can traverse continents in just minutes. George W. Bush would have been a bad president at any point in our history, but at this time and place he's a disaster. Huck Gutman takes a look in this article linked at commondreams.org:

Americans are very fond of lists, so let me do the American ‘thing.’ Here is a list of the top 10 reasons why President George W. Bush can be considered the most disastrous president in American history. This is actually a double list: the first five items concern foreign policy, while the second five address domestic policy.

Mr Bush began a war on false pretences. He lied to his people when he committed them to the war on Iraq, and on the basis of those lies he has undermined world security and committed his nation to the destruction of much of Iraq. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died - and over 1,700 Americans - for no reason greater than that being a war-time president would improve his political stature. (Well, it is possible that his personal oil interests, and those of his friends, factored in. Maybe also an idiosyncratic personal grudge - on the order of, ‘I’m going to show up my father and get that damn Saddam Hussein and show I’m tougher than both Saddam and my Dad’ - that raises his Oedipal complex to international dimensions.)

CATHOLIC CHURCH STEPPING BACKWARDS ON EVOLUTION

With a reactionary new Pope maybe it's not surprising that the Catholic Church would retreat even further into the past. The Church, which has been more or less in step with current evolutionary theory, appears ready to retreat into a more fundamentalist stance. This story talks about a leading Cardinal named Christoph Schönborn and possibly the Church's new stance on evolution. The story by Cornelia Dean and Laurie Goodstein is at www.nytimes.com:

Opponents of Darwinian evolution said they were gratified by Cardinal Schönborn's essay. But scientists and science teachers reacted with confusion, dismay and even anger. Some said they feared the cardinal's sentiments would cause religious scientists to question their faiths.

Cardinal Schönborn, who is on the Vatican's Congregation for Catholic Education, said the office had no plans to issue new guidance to teachers in Catholic schools on evolution. But he said he believed students in Catholic schools, and all schools, should be taught that evolution is just one of many theories. Many Catholic schools teach Darwinian evolution, in which accidental mutation and natural selection of the fittest organisms drive the history of life, as part of their science curriculum.

NEW NEWSWEEK STORY TO NAIL ROVE

David Corn says he has received information that new Newsweek story shows Karl Rove as directly linked in leaking the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Will we see Rove arrested, indicted, convicted, and sent to prison? I hope so. This story is at www.davidcorn.com:

To be clear, this new evidence does not necessarily mean slammer-time for Rove. Under the relevant law, it's only a crime for a government official to identify a covert intelligence official if the government official knows the intelligence officer is under cover, and this documentary evidence, I'm told, does not address this particular point. But this new evidence does show that Rove--despite his lawyers claim that Rove "did not tell any reporter that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA"--did reveal to Cooper in a deep-background conversation that Wilson's wife was in the CIA. No wonder special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald pursued Cooper so fiercely. And Fitzgerald must have been delighted when Time magazine--over Cooper's objection--surrendered Cooper's emails and notes, which, according to a previous Newsweek posting by Michael Isikoff, named Rove as Cooper's source. In court on Wednesday, Fitzgerald said that following his receipt of Cooper's emails and notes "it is clear to us we need [Cooper's] testimony perhaps more so than in the past." This was a clue that Fitzgerald had scored big when he obtained the Cooper material.

JULY 8, 2005

BORK DIDN'T BELONG ON THE COURT

Right-wingers have made rejected Supreme Court Justice nominee Robert Bork a martyr. The term "bork" has come to mean unfair treatment after the contentious hearings when Mr. Bork was rejected. But as Jonathan Chait points out in this column, Bork is a right-wing extremist. He has given ample proof of that in the years since he was rejected by the Senate. This column is at www.latimes.com:

The legend of Robert Bork's martyrdom casts a shadow over the upcoming Supreme Court nomination, as it has over every nomination for the last 18 years. Bork, for those who somehow haven't heard his tale of woe, was nominated in 1987 for the court, only to be defeated at the hands of a savage liberal attack painting him as an ultraconservative menace.

To this day, conservatives invoke the Bork nomination as a catalyzing event, one that made clear to them the full perfidy of the liberal establishment. They wave the bloody robe of Bork as justification for every hardball tactic, from impeachment to the "nuclear option" on filibusters, and vow never to let it happen again (at least not to them). Even some liberals are sheepish and apologetic about the Bork affair. Bork himself appeared on television recently to note, with evident satisfaction, that many dictionaries now define "Bork" as a verb, meaning "to attack with unfair means."

PUNITIVE NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW HITS SMALL BUSINESSES

The Republican spin on bankruptcy was that it was just those profligate consumers maxing out their credit cards and then taking the easy way out by filing for bankruptcy, leaving those noble bankers holding the bag. So they passed a terrible law that is a gift for the credit card industry and doesn't allow much leeway for consumers even when overcome by poor health or job loss or other circumstances beyond their control. It's interesting that the law also hits people who are entrepreneurs, who file for bankruptcy as businesses rather than as individuals. Support a Republican and get a stab in the back. This story by Louise Witt is at www.nytimes.com:

Instead of cracking down almost entirely on careless consumers who cannot pay credit card bills, the study indicates, the legislation threatens to hobble untold numbers of entrepreneurs and small-business owners caught in financial setbacks.

"All laws have unintended consequences," said Robert Litan, vice president for research and policy at the Kauffman Foundation. "The only question is how significant they are. In the case of the new bankruptcy law, all I can say is that it may turn out that one of the unintended consequences of the law will be to erect roadblocks for new business formation."

Congress wrote the Bankruptcy Abuse Protection and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 based on data from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts showing that individual filings as a percentage of all federal bankruptcies have steadily risen in the last 20 years, while business filings have precipitously declined from a peak of 18.3 percent in 1985 to 2.1 percent in 2004.

THE LAZY MEDIA SPIN

After George W. Bush got back into the White House last November post-election polls asked voters what single issue mattered to them the most. After all the sound and fury, the media concluded it was "values" that mattered and got Bush elected. It's hard to imagine that anyone who cares about values could vote for Bush, but that's a separate issue. Eric Alterman takes a look at the media spin and finds out, as usual, it was shallow and not very analytical. In fact, most people support liberal ideas on a whole swath of issues. This column is at www.americanprogress.org:

A Pew Research Center for People and Policy poll conducted in May 2005 throws this misperception into high relief, confirming a trend that has remained unchanged for decades. If the media were genuinely interested in accurately portraying the values of ordinary Americans, some of these numbers might receive some coverage. The poll shows that on most of the most important social issues facing Americans today, the public mind is much further to the left than it is the right.

For example, a staggering 65 percent of those polled favor providing health insurance to all Americans, even if it means increasing taxes, while 86 percent say that they favor raising the minimum wage. While the left can't claim to hold a monopoly on quality of life issues such as health care and the minimum wage, you would be hard pressed – to say the least – to ever find a conservative pundit or politician champion either one of these issues.

ANOTHER IRAQ TRAGEDY: THE LOSS OF HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS

Iraq has been called the "cradle of civilization" because it was there that so much of what created our civilization began. But when the U.S. invaded Iraq it was the oil fields and the Oil Ministry that got guarded while priceless antiquities were looted and possibly destroyed forever. I wonder sometimes how civilization might have progressed if the priceless library at Alexandria had not been destroyed by the Romans. There are some things worth more than any monetary value that can be assessed. This story by Chalmers Johnson is at www.commondreams.org:

In archaeological circles, Iraq is known as "the cradle of civilization," with a record of culture going back more than 7,000 years. William R. Polk, the founder of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Chicago, says, "It was there, in what the Greeks called Mesopotamia, that life as we know it today began: there people first began to speculate on philosophy and religion, developed concepts of international trade, made ideas of beauty into tangible forms, and, above all developed the skill of writing."[2] No other places in the Bible except for Israel have more history and prophecy associated with them than Babylonia, Shinar (Sumer), and Mesopotamia -- different names for the territory that the British around the time of World War I began to call "Iraq," using the old Arab term for the lands of the former Turkish enclave of Mesopotamia (in Greek: "between the [Tigris and Eurphrates] rivers").[3] Most of the early books of Genesis are set in Iraq (see, for instance, Genesis 10:10, 11:31; also Daniel 1-4; II Kings 24).

The best-known of the civilizations that make up Iraq's cultural heritage are the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Parthians, Sassanids, and Muslims. On April 10, 2003, in a television address, President Bush acknowledged that the Iraqi people are "the heirs of a great civilization that contributes to all humanity."[4.] Only two days later, under the complacent eyes of the U.S. Army, the Iraqis would begin to lose that heritage in a swirl of looting and burning.

JULY 7, 2005

COORDINATED BOMB ATTACKS IN LONDON

The British are not total strangers to terrorism because of the long-standing feud with the NRA in Ireland. But it is dismaying that terrorists launched a coordinated attack in London that claimed a reported 38 lives and caused hundreds of injuries. I condemn the killing of innocent people anywhere. We should have the same indignation and sorrow for the innocent killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. It's time to stop the killing. This story by Stefania Bianchi is linked at www.commondreams.org:

European governments have condemned the four bomb blasts in London's public transport system Thursday morning as an attack on the "heart" of Europe.

A series of bomb blasts ripped through the London subway and a double-decker bus during the city's rush hour Thursday, claiming more than 38 lives and seriously injuring hundreds of people.

At the time of this report it was not known who was responsible for the attacks, although the BBC says a group calling itself "The Secret Organization of al-Qaeda in Europe" has claimed responsibility for the explosions. In an unconfirmed message the group reportedly warns the "Danish and Italian government and all other crusaders" to withdraw troops from Afghanistan and Iraq.

TOM DELAY: MR. CORRUPTION

There are so many ethics charges against House Majority Leader Tom DeLay that you lose count. It's disgraceful that our government is now for sale to the highest bidder. While politicians spout off about the wonders of democracy they're raking in the big bucks and pushing legislation for the favored few. This story by Wayne Slater is at www.dallasnews.com:

A company indicted in a Texas campaign fundraising case says it was told that by giving a Tom DeLay political committee $25,000, company officials would get access to the U.S. House majority leader to influence legislation.

In court documents, Westar Energy of Kansas says that to meet with Mr. DeLay in 2002, company officials "were told they needed to write a check for $25,000" to Texans for a Republican Majority, known as TRMPAC.

It's the first time a company has said it donated to the Texas committee created by Mr. DeLay in exchange for a meeting and legislative help.

An aide to Mr. DeLay denied that he was swayed by the donation.

ADVICE FROM WALT WHITMAN

Walt Whitman may be the quintessential American poet. His Leaves of Grass was published 150 years ago and the energy and vibrancy of his work remains. This article by John Nichols is at www.madison.com:

"This is what you shall do: Love the earth and sun and the animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone that asks, stand up for the stupid and crazy, devote your income and labor to others, hate tyrants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, take off your hat to nothing known or unknown or to any man or number of men, go freely with powerful uneducated persons and with the young and with the mothers of families, read these leaves in the open air every season of every year of your life, re-examine all you have been told at school or church or in any book, dismiss whatever insults your own soul; and your very flesh shall be a great poem, and have the richest fluency not only in its words but in the silent lines of its lips and face and between the lashes of your eyes and in every motion and joint of your body."

MORE 10 COMMANDMENTS BLARNEY IN THE FRESNO BEE

One of the regular right-wing trolls who writes The Fresno Bee was pontificating today about The Ten Commandments. He was defending the idea of public display of The Ten Commandments at government buildings and even went so far as to say the Bill of Rights was influenced by The Ten Commandments. I have to admit that's a new argument for me. The Bill of Rights deals with things like freedom of religion and freedom of the press and freedom of assembly, the right to own guns, the right to a trial by jury, and the like. The Ten Commandments is focused on coveting: thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, etc.

If anything, The Ten Commandments are anti-freedom, not pro-freedom the way the Bill of Rights are. I have to wonder with the millions upon millions of copies of the Bible available, why do these right-wing creeps need monuments at public buildings where they will mostly collect dust? Keep your own copy of The Ten Commandments, why don't you? And if we're going to design a monument based on the Bible, why not base it on the Sermon on the Mount? The Sermon on the Mount strikes me as far more generous and compassionate and visionary than The Ten Commandments.

JULY 6, 2005

LATEST BUSH BIKE CRASH IS A METAPHOR

I wonder if a guy as accident prone as George W. Bush should have his finger on the nuclear button. A few years ago Bush allegedly choked on a pretzel while watching TV. Last year he flew over the handlebars of his bike on his Texas "ranch." He stumbled around on a Segway scooter while visiting Pappy Bush in Maine. Now in Scotland he crashed his bike again and collided with a police officer. All of us are subject to our foibles, of course, but I'm glad the police officer wasn't seriously hurt. This story comes from news.yahoo.com:

President Bush collided with a local police officer and fell during a bike ride on the grounds of the Gleneagles golf resort while attending a meeting of world leaders Wednesday.

Bush suffered "mild to moderate" scrapes on his hands and arms that required bandages by the White House physician, said White House spokesman Scott McClellan. The accident occurred on asphalt, McClellan said. It was raining lightly at the time, and Bush was wearing a helmet.

Police said the officer suffered a "very minor" ankle injury.

IS ROVE ABOUT TO BE INDICTED?

I think of the Edgar Allan Poe story where a man committed murder and then kept hearing the heartbeat of his victim. I wonder if people in the Bush administration, who have been responsible for so many lies and death and destruction, are hearing the beating hearts now that Karl Rove is having a very harsh light shined on him in the Valerie Plame scandal. Rumor has it that Rove is about to be indicted. This story comes from comeandgetit.blogspot.com:

Occasionally I get emails from Washington folks who work on the Hill claiming to possess juicy insider digs on our public servants and their corporate paymasters. I usually delete said emails, as I don't want to be responsible for propagating dirty rumors or false information that can't be corroborated. I'd rather let Judith Miller and the New York Times do that. Nonetheless, in the past 24 hours I have been contacted by three separate congressional Democrats in Washington, by email and later phone, who all say the same thing: Karl Rove is about to be indicted.

NOW LIMBAUGH CARES ABOUT PRIVACY

Loudmouth right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh appears ready to be hoisted on his own petard. Limbaugh, who allegedly went "doctor shopping" to get prescription drugs, has fought to keep his medical records private. He's been losing in various court motions, however. It's funny how Limbaugh believes in privacy now, but has had no problem with the privacy rights of others getting trashed. This story by John Cote is at www.sun-sentinel.com:

A Palm Beach County judge appears close to releasing at least some of Rush Limbaugh's medical records to prosecutors, saying Tuesday he could be done reviewing them by the end of the week.

The documents are expected to revive a criminal investigation into the conservative talk show host's prescription drug use. In a two-paragraph ruling, Circuit Judge Thomas Barkdull also denied Limbaugh's request to restrict who on the prosecution team may view the records.

JULY 5, 2005

BUSH SHAMELESSLY LIES EVEN TO THE TROOPS

George W. Bush has conducted a presidency more stage managed than any in history. Mr. Bush is so inept and so vacuous he has do things that are scripted or reveal his total hollowness to this country and the rest of the world. A good example was the recent speech at Ft. Bragg, where Bush repeated the same old homilies about 9/11, knowingly lying about a connection between Iraq and that terrible day. Even the scant applause he received from the soldiers in attendance was fake. This commentary by David Rossie is at www.pressconnects.com:

Time was, when a president of either party had something to say to the public, he would do it from the Oval Office or a homier part of the White House. FDR's fireside chats set the standard for the latter approach. But these were men who didn't need props or amen corners; men who could rely on their command of the language and facts to get the message across.

For those very reasons, the major networks were reluctant to cover Tuesday's speech live, especially in light of the fact that the jump soldiers chosen to make up the audience were hand-picked by their commanders. It doesn't take much imagination to figure out what the selection criteria were.

But it's well they did cover it, because it showed the country that this administration has nothing new to offer in terms of prosecuting a war that should never have been started. It was the same old cliche-ridden, Bushian boilerplate, and the soldiers sat through it in silence, except for a sudden outburst of applause when Bush vowed to "stay in the fight until the fight is won."

BUSH AND THE ENCORE OF THE COLD WAR

George W. Bush's "war on terror" has many parallels with the Cold War on Communism. During the dark days of the McCarthy era people were put on blacklists for the slightest connection with Communism. Paranoia about Communists ruled the land and all too many people were willing to trash civil liberties to stave off those awful Communists. Nowadays you have to get totally on board with Bush's war or you're somehow aiding the terrorists. And, once again, we see an assault on civil liberties. Robert Scheer writes about it a commentary at www.latimes.com:

The "war on terror" is turning out to be nothing more than a recycled formulation of the dangerously dumb "domino theory." Listen to the way President Bush justifies the deepening quagmire of Iraq: "Defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." If we didn't defeat communism in Vietnam, or even tiny Grenada, went the hoary defense of bloody proxy wars and covert brutality in the latter stages of the Cold War, San Diego might be the next to go Red.

Now, the new version of this simplistic concept seems to say, "If we don't occupy a Muslim country, inciting terrorists to attack us in Baghdad, we'll suffer more terror attacks at home." The opposite is the case. Invading Iraq has, like the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan before, proved to be a massive recruiting tool for Muslim extremists everywhere. Even the embattled CIA, which the White House is struggling to neuter as a semi-objective voice on foreign affairs, recently declared the Iraq occupation to be a boon to terrorists.

THE CRIMINALLY SILENT U.S. MEDIA

Throughout our history the media have played a role in watching over the government, keeping government officials in check, and preserving democracy. A few years ago, though, media began to be acquired by big corporations more interested in profits than in public service. So now we have a media that acts mostly as a stenographer for the government and feeds tabloid-style "news" to the public. A real media in the tradition of real reporting would have been all over the Downing Street Memos, would be all over Abu Ghraib and Guantamano, and would be all over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame's name. For the most part, though, they're silent or indifferent. This article by Linda McQuaig is at www.commondreams.org:

If clear evidence emerged showing George W. Bush had written in his diary that he had lied to the American people to justify his invasion of Iraq, would the U.S. media even consider that a story?

I'm not sure any more. To an astonishing extent, the U.S. media have avoided scrutinizing this U.S. president, even after it became clear he'd launched a war in the name of disarming Iraq of weapons that didn't exist.

A REAL ALTERNATIVE TO RIGHT-WING POLICIES

I hope these proposals by the Congressional Progressive Caucus get some attention. They offer a genuine alternative to the strait jacket offered by the right wing. The Congressional Progressive Caucus proposes humane and common sense ideas such as affordable universal health care, a secure Social Security system, a livable minimum wage, and getting out of Iraq. This story by Edward Epstein is at www.sfgate.com:

If the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which is probably the closest thing Bay Area liberal Democrats have to a government in waiting, were to take over in Washington, these would become national policy:

Access to affordable, high-quality health care would be universal. Social Security benefits would be protected, along with private pensions. The minimum wage would be raised, and workers' rights to form unions would be protected. Expiring sections of the Patriot Act wouldn't be renewed, and Congress would fight media consolidation.

U.S. troops would be brought home from Iraq "as soon as possible,'' and the government would work to "restore international respect for American power and influence.''

JULY 4, 2005

HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY

PAUL HARVEY: TRUE RIGHT WINGER

I haven't listened to Paul Harvey in years. I remember once hearing him on the air, not knowing anything about his politics at the time, when I heard him defend apartheid in South Africa. It's one of those moments where you think you heard incorrectly. But I heard correctly because Mr. Harvey is representative of the xenophobic, hateful, bigoted, racist, authoritarian views of the political right in this country. A few days ago he said it was swell (in essence) that white settlers gave Indians smallpox-infested blankets. He thinks we're soft because we don't like the idea of using nukes. This story is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:

Harvey's commentary began by lamenting the decline of American wartime aggression. "We're standing there dying, daring to do nothing decisive because we've declared ourselves to be better than our terrorist enemies--more moral, more civilized," he said. Drawing a contrast with what he cast as the praiseworthy nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in World War II, Harvey lamented that "we sent men with rifles into Afghanistan and Iraq and kept our best weapons in their silos"--suggesting that America should have used its nuclear arsenal in its invasions of both countries.

Harvey concluded:

"We didn't come this far because we're made of sugar candy. Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and across this continent by giving smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans. That was biological warfare. And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever.

"And we grew prosperous. And yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves. So it goes with most great nation-states, which--feeling guilty about their savage pasts--eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry up-and-coming who are not made of sugar candy."


ALL THE BLATHER BY THE G8 FOR AIDING THE WORLD'S POOR NATIONS

George W. Bush has made rather dubious claims about how much money his administration has sent for AIDS relief in Africa. More blather will emerge from the summit of the G8 conference where the leaders of the rich countries decide the fates of billions of fellow human beings. This article by George Monbiot calls proposed debt relief for the world's poor nations an "extortion racket." The article is at www.guardian.co.uk:

An aura of sanctity is descending upon the world's most powerful men. On Saturday the finance ministers from seven of the G8 nations (Russia was not invited) promised to cancel the debts the poorest countries owe to the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The hand that holds the sword has been stayed by angels: angels with guitars rather than harps.

Who, apart from the leader writers of the Daily Telegraph, could deny that debt relief is a good thing? Never mind that much of this debt - money lent by the World Bank and IMF to corrupt dictators - should never have been pursued in the first place. Never mind that, in terms of looted resources, stolen labour and now the damage caused by climate change, the rich owe the poor far more than the poor owe the rich. Some of the poorest countries have been paying more for debt than for health or education. Whatever the origins of the problem, that is obscene.

RIGHT-WINGERS CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH

Wrapped in their tight little cocoons of bigotry, hatred, ignorance, and paranoia, right-wingers can't handle the truth. Any time facts that fly in the face of their world view are presented suddenly it's the "liberal media" or some kind of conspiracy to destroy good old American values like theirs. Bill Moyers talks about the efforts to transform NPR and PBS into right-wing megaphones, all sound and fury, with no truth. This article is at sundaygazettemail.com:

The more compelling our journalism, the angrier the radical right of the Republican Party became. That’s because the one thing they loathe more than liberals is the truth. And the quickest way to be damned by them as liberal is to tell the truth.

SOCIAL SECURITY SCAM ALL ABOUT IDEOLOGY

This piece from the Los Angeles Times shows that the drive to privatize Social Security has been about ideology more than any kind of Social Security "crisis." Much of the push for privatization has come from the libertarian Cato Institute, which basically believes we should all be thrown to the wolves. This article by Michael A. Hiltzik is at www.latimes.com:

If there were any doubts that Bush's campaign against Social Security was not fiscal or economic but strictly ideological, Wehner's memo dispelled them in a stroke. But his words weren't meant for the public eye (although they were promptly leaked to the press). In its public language, the Bush campaign for Social Security reform has steered clear of the elemental ideological conflict, sticking instead to the language of economics. The magic of privatization, as President Bush would repeat often over the next few months, would save Social Security from impending bankruptcy; never was heard a single word about the goal of ensuring victory for the conservative movement in "the battle of ideas."

JULY 3, 2005

THE GROSS INEQUALITY CREATED BY BUSH

Some right-wingers have used the absolutely disgusting argument that taxes on the very wealthy in this country are "confiscatory." How is it possible, then, that so few hold such a high percentage of the nation's wealth? If taxes were truly confiscatory, the big fortunes would be wiped out. Instead, they've grown in magnitude while we see an increase in poverty and a shrinking of the middle class. Now, in a "time of war," as right-wingers like to solemnly tell us, the very rich are still not being asked to sacrifice. They're being given huge tax cuts at a time when we need resources to shore up domestic security. This article by Chuck Collins is at www.commondreams.org:

The 1916 passage of the estate tax was a fundamentally American response to the inequalities of the Gilded Age, as well as the U.S. entry into World War I. Even after the war, businessman Harlan E. Read argued in "The Abolition of Inheritance" that war debts should be paid with heavy taxes on inherited wealth.

To pay for World War II, the estate tax was increased so that fortunes exceeding $50 million would be taxed at 70 percent. President Franklin Roosevelt spoke out boldly against war profiteering, saying, "I don't want to see a single war millionaire created in the United States as a result of this world disaster."

Today the lives of U.S. citizens are again at risk as they face prolonged service in Iraq. Others are feeling the pain of recession, losing jobs, savings and security. State and local governments, facing the worst budget cuts since World War II, have gutted crucial community services.

KEEP CHURCH-STATE SEPARATION

The lessons of history are clear. Mixing religion and government is toxic. Our founding fathers recognized this and the First Amendment makes it clear. Yet you have Republican clowns trying to subvert the Constitution to get their version of "Christianity" mixed into the affairs of government. The latest nitwit is Oklahoma Congressman Ernest Istook. This story is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State today urged Congress to defeat a proposed constitutional amendment that would allow officially sanctioned prayer in public schools, display of religious symbols at public buildings and other governmental promotions of religion.

U.S. Rep. Ernest Istook (R-Okla.) announced this morning at a small press gathering in front of the U.S. Supreme Court that he is introducing a so-called "Religious Freedom Amendment" that would "reverse this week's Supreme Court ruling against the Ten Commandments, and also correct a series of similar rulings that we believe are wrong."

But civil liberties advocates say Istook's proposal is an invitation to disaster.

THE FOUNDING FATHERS FOUGHT GLOBALISM TOO

One of the most famous acts of defiance by the American colonists against the British empire was the so-called "Boston Tea Party," when tea from the East India Company was dumped into Boston harbor. It was rebellion by our forebears against a global company that was given special treatment by the British government so that it could built a monopoly. King George III and George W. Bush have a lot in common This story by David Morris at www.alternet.org:

As Thom Hartmann points out in his excellent book, "Unequal Protection," the colonists' actions were as much a challenge to global corporate power as they were a rebellion against King George III.

The ships were owned by the East India Company, a vast corporation with significant economic power over Britain's colonies around the world. The company had suffered large economic losses, in part because of a boycott of their merchandise by the American colonies. That represented a significant loss of revenue to the British government as well.

Thus, in 1773 the British Parliament passed the Tea Act. The Act exempted the East India Company from paying taxes on tea sold in the colonies. The aim was to enable the company to undercut the prices of small competitors, all of whom were subject to the tax, and drive them out of business.

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL DOES NOT HATE AMERICA

When Amnesty International released a report sharply critical of the U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo George W. Bush talked about the allegations being from people "who hate America." Reporting allegations of torture, based upon multiple sources, isn't about "hating America," but about addressing injustice. The United States, above all, should abhor torture because it runs contrary to everything we stand for. This article by William F. Schulz is at www.commondreams.org:

I love hot dogs and apple pie - too much, in fact. I'm a big baseball fan (though I admit that because I grew up in Pittsburgh, I root for the hapless Pirates). I relish our verdant prairies and majestic mountain peaks. And I'm deeply moved every time I watch CBS News' Fallen Heroes and learn of one more brave young man or woman who died for our country.

It's not just because my American credentials are impregnable, however, that the anti-American charge rankles me. It's because we in the human rights business are among the most appreciative of what America stands for. We are the ones who so often witness what frequently happens in other countries to people who disagree with their governments.

When I was in Darfur, Sudan, in the fall, I visited a prison in which a number of lawyers had been incarcerated. Their crime was representing clients whose families had been massacred by the government-backed janjaweed militia and who, instead of seeking violent revenge, had sought compensation through the judicial system. Before their cases had even made it to court, their lawyers had been tossed in jail.

JULY 2, 2005

SO MUCH FOR DEMOCRACY IN AFGHANISTAN

I would agree with Winston Churchill, who said that democracy was the worst form of government except for everything else. I wish countries around the world could and would adopt democratic forms of government, but the human race is a long way from moving in that direction. It was naive at best, but probably more rooted in cynicism, that George W. Bush and his administration talked about establishing democracy in war-ravaged Afghanistan. There are centuries and centuries of tribal tradition in Afghanistan. You aren't going to go there and in a few short years overcome that tradition. Now Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a bubbling cauldron of division and violence. This article by Daniel Cooney is linked at news.yahoo.com:

Afghanistan was held up as an example of U.S.-led nation-building just three months ago. But that optimism has succumbed to near-daily ambushes, bombings, execution-style killings and this week's downing of a U.S. military helicopter.

From U.S. and U.N. officials to Afghan villagers, fear is growing that this country may be at a seminal moment — with the barrage of violence in danger of overwhelming three years of state-building.

"After the presidential elections last year, everyone was optimistic that we were heading toward a stable, peaceful democracy. But it no longer seems that way," said Malalai Juya, a female candidate in September's upcoming elections. "Everyone is scared now. Security has been getting worse and worse by the day."

SOMETHING VERY WRONG WITH JUSTICE SYSTEM

The United States leads the industrialized world in the number of people slammed into prison. The system is also quite discriminatory toward minorities. It's another form of segregation, putting an ugly light on the gains made in civil rights during the past few decades. Now we learn that in California the health care for prisoners is so terrible that the federal government is taking over the system. This article by Jennifer Warren Times is at yahoo.news.com:

A federal judge said Thursday that he would seize control of prison healthcare from the state and place it under a receiver, declaring that "extreme measures" were needed to fix a system that kills one inmate each week through medical incompetence or neglect.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson said that despite repeated warnings from his court and the "good intentions" of some state officials, the Department of Corrections continues to allow sick prisoners to die "for no acceptable reason." The judge said he would soon issue a written order outlining details of the receivership and begin discussing potential receivers with lawyers in the case.

BUSH TOTALLY IRRESPONSBILE ON KYOTO

George W. Bush advanced a right-wing talking point when he claimed that the Kyoto accords would have "wrecked" the U.S. economy. He also cited "big polluters" like China. The U.S. is the biggest source of greenhouse gases in the world, so it's really the pot calling the kettle black to criticize developing nations like China. The U.S. should also be the leader in addressing global climate change. I believe the effects of not signing Kyoto will be far more devastating to the economy than taking steps to deal with global climate change. Think of the diseases that a changed climate will cause. We will experience diseases formerly confined to tropical areas. There will be a massive increase in skin cancer. We will see more and more killer tornadoes and hurricanes. We will see massive flooding in some areas and extended droughts in other areas. We will undoubtedly see many species become extinct. This article comes from www.cnn.com:

U.S. President George W. Bush said in a Danish TV interview aired Thursday that adhering to the Kyoto treaty on climate change would have "wrecked" the U.S. economy, and he called U.S. dependence on Gulf oil a "national security problem."

"I couldn't in good faith have signed Kyoto," Bush told the Danish Broadcasting Corp., noting that the treaty did not include other nations -- including India and China -- that he called "big polluters."

In Bush's view, the Kyoto treaty's mandatory limits also would not ensure that climate risks would be addressed unless countries like China also make emission cuts. He also says more study is needed to determine whether human activity is primarily to blame for rising temperatures.

IS ROVE THE LEAKER ON VALERIE PLAME?

A judge's refusal to let two reporters keep their sources confidential on the Valerie Plame story may lead to landing a very big fish in the Bush administration. As you'll recall, Valerie Plame was "outed" as a CIA operative after her husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, questioned the Bush administration's claims that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake from Niger to make a nuclear bomb. Like so many other claims of the Bush administration, that turned out to be a lie. The "outing" was courtesy of right-wing commentator Robert Novak, and appeared to be revenge against Wilson. Leaking the name of CIA operatives is a crime. Some sources indicate the leaker was none other than Bush political strategist Karl Rove. This story is at www.mediainfo.com:

Now that Time Inc. has turned over documents to federal court, presumably revealing who its reporter, Matt Cooper, identified as his source in the Valerie Plame/CIA case, speculation runs rampant on the name of that source, and what might happen to him or her. Tonight, on the syndicated McLaughlin Group political talk show, Lawrence O'Donnell, senior MSNBC political analyst, claimed to know that name--and it is, according to him, top White House mastermind Karl Rove.

JULY 1, 2005

TAXES ARE FOR LITTLE PEOPLE

Leona Helmsley once famously said that "taxes are for little people" and that's the philosophy of George W. Bush and the Republicans in power. The number of the very affluent who paid no federal income taxes grew by 15% last year. While you and I pay taxes on darned near everything we earn, people who don't work get a free ride. This article by David Cay Johnston is at www.nytimes.com:

The number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal income taxes jumped more than 15 percent in 2002, to 5,650, new government data showed yesterday.

The chances of having a large income but not paying taxes on any of it are growing, according to the data, issued in the Internal Revenue Service's annual report to Congress on well-to-do Americans who live tax free. About one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one in 531 in 2001 and one in 1,010 in 2000.

Over all, the top 2 percent of earners, the 2.5 million filers with income of $200,000 or more, paid almost 27 cents in taxes for each dollar of income they reported in 2002, other I.R.S. data showed. This group accounted for 53.5 percent of the income tax paid by all Americans.

Among that high-income group, however, almost 83,000, or one in 33, paid less than a dime in taxes for every dollar of income. An additional 79,000 paid less than 15 cents. The average for all Americans was 13 cents.

IF YOU CAN'T WIN FAIRLY, CHEAT

I've maintained that Republicans can't win elections if they present issues honestly. Their agenda is for a favored few, especially the corporate elites, the military-industrial connections, the very affluent, and a few items for the Christian right. So they've built a massive propaganda machine of think tanks, compliant media, bombastic AM talk radio shills, and local efforts to suppress Democratic votes. That suppression includes dirty tricks, according to this article. The article by Mark Crispin Miller is at markcrispinmiller.blogspot.com:

In the months before the presidential election, a firm called Sproul & Associates launched voter registration drives in at least eight states, most of them swing states. The group-run by Nathan Sproul, former head of the Arizona Christian Coalition and the Arizona Republican Party-had been hired by the Republican National Committee.

Sproul got into a bit of trouble last fall when, in certain states, it came out that the firm was playing dirty tricks in order to suppress the Democratic vote: concealing their partisan agenda, tricking Democrats into registering as Republicans, surreptitiously re-registering Democrats and Independents as Republicans, and shredding Democratic registration forms.

BAGHDAD BURNING ON BUSH'S SPEECH

I think Riverbend's Baghdad Burning blog is one of the best on the Internet. She lives in Baghdad and sees the results of Bush's invasion up close. Here she takes a look at reality vs. Bush. The blog is at riverbendblog.blogspot.com:

Bush said:
“The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. The war reached our shores on September 11, 2001.”

Do people really still believe this? In spite of that fact that no WMD were found in Iraq, in spite of the fact that prior to the war, no American was ever killed in Iraq and now almost 2000 are dead on Iraqi soil? It’s difficult to comprehend that rational people, after all of this, still actually accept the claims of a link between 9/11 and Iraq. Or that they could actually believe Iraq is less of a threat today than it was in 2003.

We did not have Al-Qaeda in Iraq prior to the war. We didn’t know that sort of extremism. We didn’t have beheadings or the abduction of foreigners or religious intolerance. We actually pitied America and Americans when the Twin Towers went down and when news began leaking out about it being Muslim fundamentalists- possibly Arabs- we were outraged.

NOT ENOUGH TROOPS IN IRAQ

I believe the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. But, assuming you believe the U.S. should remain there, many in the military believe the troop level is too low. It's a constant struggle to move troops to hot spots. They have to let one hot spot go to take care of more urgent matters elsewhere. In his speech the other night George W. Bush claimed that "commanders on the ground" have said the troop levels are sufficient. It's probably a case of career preservation to tell Bush what he wants to hear. Military commanders who have spoken out have found their careers abruptly short-circuited. In this column Jonathan Chait talks about the insistence by the administration that the troop levels are fine. The column is at www.latimes.com:

In the prelude to the Iraq war, both Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney had reasons to low-ball the needed troops. Rumsfeld was fascinated with transforming the military into a smaller, high-tech force. Cheney believed Iraqis would "greet us as liberators" and therefore needed little armed supervision. Given the cult of personality around Bush, whom conservatives lionized as a fearless Churchillian slayer of terrorists, any deviation was seen as ideological heresy. After Shinseki ventured his opinions on troops, conservative pundit Jed Babbin blasted him as a weak-kneed, politically minded Clintonite who failed to understand that "the very premise of an extended 'occupation' is antithetical to President Bush's policy of liberation." Babbin intended that line as an indictment of Shinseki. In retrospect it's an indictment of Bush.

Bush's continued stubbornness probably derives from a refusal to admit a mistake. If we need more troops now, that implies we needed more troops all along, which means that if the war ends badly, Bush must have made a colossal mistake. It's characteristic of this administration that it would rather reduce the chances of being blamed for a national catastrophe than reduce the chances of the catastrophe happening in the first place.

JUNE 30, 2005

THE IRAQ QUAGMIRE

When George W. Bush talks about training Iraqis to take over military duties in Iraq it reminds me of the "Vietnamization" policies of Richard M. Nixon. We were going to let the South Vietnamese take over and try to extricate ourselves from the nightmare of Vietnam. We know what happened. After all the death, after all the wounded, after all the division in this country, SouthVietnam still fell to the Communists. Total incompetence and lack of scruples got us into Iraq. Staying there doesn't accomplish anything but getting more innocent people slaughtered. Bob Herbert writes about the war and the incompetent leadership of the Bush administration in this column at www.nytimes.com:

The Bush crowd bristles at the use of the "Q-word" - quagmire - to describe American involvement in Iraq. But with our soldiers fighting and dying with no end in sight, who can deny that Mr. Bush has gotten us into "a situation from which extrication is very difficult," which is a standard definition of quagmire?

More than 1,730 American troops have already died in Iraq. Some were little more than children when they signed up for the armed forces, like Ramona Valdez, who grew up in the Bronx and was just 17 when she joined the Marines. She was one of six service members, including four women, who were killed when a suicide bomber struck their convoy in Falluja last week.

TORTURING CHILDREN

I wonder how many of those "pro life" types would object to the torture of children at Guantanamo. They haven't raised much fuss about the slaughter of children in Iraq and Afghanistan, so they probably don't care about torture either. But the rest of us, who really do value life, should care. How much lower can the Bush administration sink than to torture children? This story by Arlie Hochschild is at www.iht.com:

Juvenile detainees in American facilities like Abu Ghraib and Bagram Air Base have been subject to the same mistreatment as adults. The International Red Cross, Amnesty International and the Pentagon itself have gathered substantial testimony of torture of children, bolstered by accounts from soldiers who witnessed or participated in the abuse.

According to Amnesty International, Muhammad Ismail Agha, 13, was arrested in Afghanistan in late 2002 and detained without charge or trial for over a year, first at Bagram and then at Guantánamo. He was held in solitary confinement and subjected to sleep deprivation.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW

The evidence is clear and we know the disastrous results of the lies by George W. Bush and Richard Cheney that got us into an unnecessary war in Iraq. There are too many dead, too many maimed, too many lives destroyed for Bush and Cheney to escape accountability. I believe they should not only be impeached and removed from office, but tried before an international tribunal for war crimes. This story about a new Zogby poll shows the eroding support for Bush and the momentum building for impeachment. This story is at www.commondreams.org:

In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

THE FORGOTTEN WAR IN COLOMBIA

While the nightmares in Iraq and Afghanistan continue there is another war going on, largely under the radar, in Colombia. The U.S. has backed a repressive regime there supposedly to stop the flow of drugs. It's another of those ends justify the means approaches, it appears. Colombia, like another U.S. ally in Uzbekistan, has a horrible human rights record. This story by Geov Parrish is at www.commondreams.org:

Amidst the disaster that is Iraq, the Pentagon has been fighting a smaller but no less ugly war. Next week, Congress will decide whether to continue sending military aid to Colombia, a country with one of the worst human rights records in the western hemisphere.

The focus of the aid is Plan Colombia, a five-year-old plan that has poured billions of U.S. dollars into drug crop fumigation and military aid. The plan expires this year, and needs Congressional approval to continue. It's a rare opportunity to impact U.S. warmaking -- yet, in part because of the subsequent, problematic invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, there has been virtually no U.S. media attention on what our tax dollars are assisting in Colombia.

One of the most troubling incidents there happened in February, when eight members of the Peace Community of San José de Apartadó were massacred, including four children. One of the victims was community leader and founder Luis Eduardo Guerra. Evidence points to the Colombian army as the authors of this crime.

JUNE 29, 2005

PAT CONROY ON CONSERVATIVES

I just read Pat Conroy's terrific novel Beach Music and I came upon this quote about conservatives: "'I would be a conservative if I'd never met any,' I said. 'They're selfish, mean-spirited, egocentric, reactionary, and boring.'"

PERLE ADMITS IRAQ WAR WAS ILLEGAL

Richard Perle, one of the prime architects of the war against Iraq, admitted that under international law the war is illegal. Then he has the audacity to talk about doing the "moral" thing. This article by Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger in Washington is linked at www.makethemaccountable.com:

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

BUSH'S SPEECH MORE OF THE SAME OLD LIES

I didn't watch the speech, but from the clips I've heard I know I didn't miss anything. It's more of the same rhetoric trying to link Saddam Hussein to the attacks on 9/11, which is an outright lie, more stuff about "staying the course," and "completing the mission." He didn't mention his little stunt on the aircraft carrier where a banner said "mission accomplished." It seems to me that when you're already in a hole you don't keep digging. This editorial at www.latimes.com takes a look at Bush's dissembling:

President Bush's pep talk to the nation Tuesday night was a major disappointment. He again rewrote history by lumping together the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the need for war in Iraq, when, in fact, Saddam Hussein's Iraq had no connection to Al Qaeda. Bush spoke of "difficult and dangerous" work in Iraq that produces "images of violence and bloodshed," but he glossed over the reality of how bad the situation is. He offered no benchmarks to measure the war's progress, falling back on exhortations to "complete the mission" with a goal of withdrawing troops "as soon as possible."

IS IT PEAK OIL TIME IN SAUDI ARABIA?

"Peak oil" is the term that means oil becomes more expensive to extract than it's worth. One leading analyst thinks Saudi Arabia may be at that point and it's significant because Saudi Arabia is the world's leading oil producer. There are no known reserves to compensate for what we don't get from Saudi Arabia. I believe the United States should launch a project similar to the moon landing project to find alternative energy sources. That's not only because oil will not be there in the next few decades, but because hydrocarbons are having a drastic effect on the global ecology. This article by Michael T. Klare is at www.dawn.com:

FOR those oil enthusiasts who believe that petroleum will remain abundant for decades to come — among them, American president, vice-president and their many friends in the oil industry — any talk of an imminent “peak” in global oil production and an ensuing decline can be easily countered with a simple mantra: “Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia.”

Not only will the Saudis pump extra oil now to alleviate global shortages, as is claimed, but they will keep pumping more in the years ahead to quench our insatiable thirst for energy. And when the kingdom’s existing fields run dry, lo, it will begin pumping from other fields that are just waiting to be exploited. This is the basis for the administration’s contention that we can continue to increase our yearly consumption of oil, rather than conserve what’s left and begin the transition to a post-petroleum economy.

JUNE 28, 2005

HARD TO BELIEVE WE'RE NOT THE GOOD GUYS

You wonder why Americans are not revulsed by reports of Americans torturing alleged terror suspects or, some cases, murdering them. You wonder why Americans are not aghast at atrocities committed by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq. Maybe it's the old belief that we're the good guys and the ends justify the means. I guess I believe in a higher standard. I believe the United States should be the shining city on the hill, not just the illusion of it. This article talks about the U.S. use of napalm in Iraq. It's a weapon that universally reviled, but nothing is out of bounds for the Bush gang. The article by Mike Whitney is at www.smirkingchimp.com:

Two weeks ago the UK Independent ran an article which confirmed that the US had "lied to Britain over the use of napalm in Iraq". (6-17-05) Since then, not one American newspaper or TV station has picked up the story even though the Pentagon has verified the claims. This is the extent to which the American "free press" is yoked to the center of power in Washington. As we've seen with the treatment of the Downing Street memo, (which was reluctantly reported 5 weeks after it appeared in the British press) the air-tight American media ignores any story that doesn't embrace their collective support for the war. The prospect that the US military is using "universally reviled" weapons runs counter to the media-generated narrative that the war was motivated by humanitarian concerns (to topple a brutal dictator) as well as to eliminate the elusive WMDs. We can now say with certainty that the only WMDs in Iraq were those that were introduced by foreign invaders from the US who used them to incinerate the indigenous people who dared to resist.

THE RIGHT WING ATTACK ON HILLARY CLINTON

I don't really know why the right wing has had such a fixation on the Clintons. Bill and Hillary Clinton aren't even liberals by any true definition. As talk show host Mike Malloy has said, Bill Clinton is the best Republican president we've ever had Now there is a new hatchet job about Hillary Clinton. I have to think right-wingers get terrified at the thought of an independent, smart, and powerful woman. Maybe she's a threat to their masculinity somehow. Richard Cohen writes about the new screed by a guy named Edward Klein in this column at www.washingtonpost.com:

The reviews are convincing. Klein has gone so far over the top that I, an acquaintance of lo these many years, am astonished. He is, after all, a former editor of the New York Times Magazine and, by credential, a member of the august establishment press. He was also an editor at Newsweek, which is owned by the aforementioned Washington Post, so the magazine is next door to Pravda in the fantasy neighborhood where good right-wingers live. All this leads me to conclude -- Ed, you sly devil, you -- that Klein set out to expose the right wing for the gullible nincompoops they are. He has succeeded, and vast riches await him.

THE VERY SLEAZY KARL ROVE

About two weeks ago the FOX animated show "American Dad" had Karl Rove as a character in its episode. In the show Rove was dressed in a robe similar to what a friar would wear, but evil emanated from him. At one point he couldn't enter a church because he was too evil. Rove is George W. Bush's chief political strategist, a man evidently totally lacking in principle. Winning is more important than the country and more important than what is moral. Rove demonstrated his sleaziness again in falsely attacking liberals as being soft on terrorism. As E.J. Dionne notes, this is an old Republican tactic dating back to the era of Joseph McCarthy. This column is at www.washingtonpost.com:

That's how guilt by association works. Make a charge and then -- once your attack is out there -- pretend that your words have been misinterpreted. Split your opponents. Put them on the defensive. Force them to say things like: "No, we're not soft on terrorism," or, "I'm not that kind of liberal." Once this happens, the attacker has already won.

Respectable opinion treats Rove's speech as just another partisan flap. It's much more. It's the reincarnation of a style of politics that turns political opponents into traitors or dupes who are soft on the nation's enemies. Welcome back to the '50s.

GHOULISH BUSH ADMINISTRATION USES 9/11 VICTIMS

Politics may have always been tinged with a certain amount of cynicism, but it's hard to believe anything is more cynical than using the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks for political gain. It's right out of the Adolf Hitler playbook. Bush and his minions have consistently trotted out the 9/11 tragedy to justify almost any vile thing they want to do, whether it be attacking Iraq, or throwing innocent people into jail and torturing them, or shredding civil liberties here at home. This item comes from americablog.blogspot.com:

No, President Bush, we haven't forgotten. Your attack dog Karl Rove came to New York City and the sacred ground of 9-11 and made a nasty, partisan political speech and he used that national tragedy to do it. Rove very directly made a comparison between conservatives and liberals, but put that aside. Whether you believe Bush was using Rove to attack a small group of Americans he thinks are misguided or the 50 million Americans who didn't vote for him or the vast majority of Americans who now realize he lied about Iraq, using the dead of 9-11 to try and beef up your poll numbers is reprehensible and wrong.

No one should use the dead of 9-11 to try and further their partisan political agenda. Whomever Bush wants to pretend that screed was directed at, he used the innocent victims of 9-11 to do it.

JUNE 27, 2005

ATTACK ON PBS IS JUST PART OF A PATTERN

The only way Republicans have been successful over the past two decades is by the masterful use of propaganda. Any objective look at the policies of Republicans show that they benefit a tiny minority of corporate interests, the upper income brackets, and the military-industrial complex. Their policies are not even favorable to members of the Christian right, although Republicans will throw them an occasional bone or two to get their support. The Bush administration has pushed the envelope on propaganda, even putting so-called "journalists" on the payroll. Now they're taking it a step further in trying to convert PBS and NPR to propaganda engines of the right. Frank Rich writes about it at www.nytimes.com:

The intent is not to kill off PBS and NPR but to castrate them by quietly annexing their news and public affairs operations to the larger state propaganda machine that the Bush White House has been steadily constructing at taxpayers' expense. If you liked the fake government news videos that ended up on local stations - or thrilled to the "journalism" of Armstrong Williams and other columnists who were covertly paid to promote administration policies - you'll love the brave new world this crowd envisions for public TV and radio.

TOP 100 EXECUTIVES DID VERY WELL

We live in a country where the federal minimum wage hasn't been increased in years, where wages are stagnant for most of us, and where poverty has been on the increase, but you'll be happy to know the median income for the 100 top-paid executives was $5.25 million in 2004. It warms the cockles of your heart, doesn't it, that these are the people getting the big Bush tax cuts. This story by Terence O'Hara is at www.washingtonpost.com:

It pays, more than ever, to be at the top.

The median total compensation for the 100 highest-paid executives in The Washington Post's annual survey of executive pay was $5.25 million in 2004, up slightly from $5.13 million the year before.

THE IRAQ WAR IS CREATING A GREAT DIVIDE

George W. Bush billed himself as "a uniter, not a divider," but he has succeeded in dividing the country more than any president since Richard Nixon in the last years of the Vietnam war. Nixon talked about the "silent majority," implying that demonstrators in the streets were just a minority. As it turned out, the majority of the country turned against the Vietnam war. Even though we now have an all volunteer army, you can see the insidious effects of an army based mostly on a poverty draft. Rich kids aren't in the military. Now the military is having an even more difficult time recruiting because the truth about Iraq is becoming plain to see. Dick Cheney claimed the insurgency was in its "last throes," but Donald Rumsfeld then said it may take twelve years to defeat the insurgency. The Bush administration has no idea of how to get out of this war. They just want more death and destruction. Bob Herbert writes about it in his column at www.nytimes.com:

The all-volunteer Army is not working. The problem with such an Army is that there are limited numbers of people who will freely choose to participate in an enterprise in which they may well be shot, blown up, burned to death or suffer some other excruciating fate.

The all-volunteer Army is fine in peacetime, and in military routs like the first gulf war. But when the troops are locked in a prolonged war that yields high casualties, and they look over their shoulders to see if reinforcements are coming from the general population, they find -as they're finding now - that no one is there.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DETAINED FOR THE FLIMSIEST OF REASONS

In the land of Bush you can be arrested and detained indefinitely if you have literature on flying or you like videotaping boats out in the harbor. The excuse of "fighting terrorism" is being used carte blanche by the government to flagrantly violate the civil liberties of people, making a mockery of the Bill of Rights. This story by Shannon McCaffrey talks about a new ACLU report detailing abuses by the U.S. Justice Department. The story is at www.commondreams.org:

The Justice Department imprisoned dozens of Muslim men for months in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks based on secret evidence and often flimsy links to terrorism, two civil liberties groups charge in a new report to be made public on Monday.

The report by the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch accuses the Justice Department of plunging at least 70 men "into a Kafkaesque world of indefinite detention."

Four of the 70 have been convicted of crimes related to terrorism and three are awaiting trial, and the report said 13 of the men have received apologies from the government.

In one case, a 68-year-old physician and U.S. citizen was hauled away in handcuffs after his suspicious neighbors broke into his apartment and discovered literature on flying. Another man, also a U.S. citizen, was locked up after his wife was seen videotaping boats on Chesapeake Bay by other drivers who thought she might be scouting the Chesapeake Bay Bridge as a target.


INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

The Christian right's latest attempts to teach creationism in schools is an idea called "intelligent design." The argument is an old one--that life is just too complex to have evolved on its own. But "intelligent design" doesn't explain much of nature or much of the design failures of the human body, such as the blind spot we all have or our propensity for back trouble. David Barash writes about it at www.latimes.com:

But, in fact, the living world is shot through with imperfection. Unless one wants to attribute either incompetence or sheer malevolence to such a designer, this imperfection — the manifold design flaws of life — points incontrovertibly to a natural, rather than a divine, process, one in which living things were not created de novo, but evolved. Consider the human body. Ask yourself, if you were designing the optimum exit for a fetus, would you engineer a route that passes through the narrow confines of the pelvic bones? Add to this the tragic reality that childbirth is not only painful in our species but downright dangerous and sometimes lethal, owing to a baby's head being too large for the mother's birth canal.

JUNE 26, 2005

ABOUT THOSE PRIVATIZED ACCOUNTS BUSH WANTS

The recent shafting of United Airlines employees should be a warning about the dangers and the major pitfalls of relying on private sector pension plans to "save" Social Security. Without any apparent conscience or integrity, United wants to dump its pension plans onto the federal government (the taxpayers) and reduce the pensions of United employees. The House of Representatives sent a strong rebuke to United. This item comes from blog.dccc.org:

"United Airlines is the poster child for what's wrong with the private pension system in this country. United did not exhaust all alternatives to dumping its pension plans, and the result was a strong rebuke from Congress today," said Miller. "United owes better treatment to its employees and retirees, who have dedicated their lives to the company."

United's agreements with the PBGC – if they are allowed to stand – would transfer $6.6 billion in unfunded pension liabilities onto the federal government, the largest corporate pension plan failure in U.S. history. Miller has warned that other companies may look to the United situation to see if they, too, can cut costs by dumping their pension plans, raising the specter of a taxpayer bailout of the PBGC, which is already running a $23.3 billion deficit.

WAR IN IRAQ "UNWINNABLE"

This editorial in The Seattle Post-Intelligencer calls the war in Iraq unwinnable, and I agree. George W. Bush thought he would conquer Iraq, impose a fake "democracy" there, and establish U.S. hegemony in the Middle East for decades to come. He didn't count on the Iraqis resisting an occupation. When people are willing to commit suicide to kill as many Americans as possible, you have to find ways of dealing with the problem without exclusive dependence on the military. This editorial is at seattlepi.nwsource.com:

The Bush administration is revving up its media manipulation machinery with a new push on "winning" in Iraq. In the latest sales pitch for why we are there, President Bush says, in effect, that Americans are fortunate to have drawn terrorists into a fight on somebody else's soil.

His neocon policy advisers have been wrong about almost everything else in Iraq. They foisted this war on the United States and the world with patently false assertions not just about weapons of mass destruction. The increasingly famous Downing Street memo only hints at the scope of mass deception. The neocons also spread absolute fantasies about how we would be greeted in Iraq, how many troops would be needed to establish security and how much time, money and blood would be spent in an occupation.

ANOTHER STUPID REPUBLICAN ATTACK ON SOCIAL SECURITY

The latest incarnation of Republicans designs to destroy Social Security involves using the surpluses currently in the Social Security trust fund to create private accounts. Those surpluses are needed to secure the system for when Baby Boomers begin retiring in large numbers in the next few years. The Republican plan would mean less in Social Security benefits for retirees and would swell the federal deficit. This commentary is at www.boston.com:

REPUBLICANS IN Congress are getting desperate as their plans to privatize Social Security unravel from a dearth of public support. Their latest proposal would set up limited private accounts that would not generate much income for future retirees but would increase the budget deficit and threaten the solvency of the Social Security system.

The plans, unveiled by Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina and a group of GOP House members, would divert surpluses in the Social Security trust fund to private accounts. The trust fund last year got about $145 billion more in tax revenue than it paid out in benefits, but those surpluses will vanish in 12 years with an onslaught of baby boomer retirements. Then the trust fund will go into deficit. The surpluses are now invested in government bonds that can help pay for future retiree benefits

JUNE 25, 2005

ROVE TALKS BIG, BUT BUSH HAS GOTTEN NO RESULTS

Karl Rove blustered a few days ago that right-wingers stood tall against terrorism after the attacks on 9/11, but said liberals were essentially wimps. Let's look at the results, shall we? Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, is still on the loose. He was close to be captured at Tora Bora except for the incompetence of the Bush regime. There are been very few convictions related to terrorism, but the U.S. has shamefully imprisoned and tortured people who were innocent. We've attacked a country that had no connection to terrorism and murdered thousands of innocent people. Incidents of terrorism have increased since the much-vaunted "war on terror" was launched. There is a good summary in this item at www.americanprogressaction.org:

Whenever the president’s domestic agenda hits rock bottom—like clockwork—right-wingers trot out the 9/11 card to distract people from wildly unpopular policy decisions. On Wednesday, the president’s chief political architect, Karl Rove, claimed: “Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” We’ll never know his exact motives, but perhaps the president’s self-described “Turd Blossom” was projecting the administration’s own need for counseling to make up for its complete lack of success in fighting terrorism.

BUSH IS EITHER DELUSIONAL OR A LIAR

If George W. Bush and his miserable administration were tried before a jury of their peers on Iraq, the evidence would demand a verdict of "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" on all counts. Yet Bush keeps claiming that things are just going swimmingly in Iraq, including in his latest weekly radio address. Former Carter adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has a different take in this article at www.sfgate.com:

In the Democratic radio response, Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security adviser in the Carter administration, alleged that the war has been conducted with "tactical and strategic incompetence."

"Two years later, America finds itself more isolated than ever before, the object of unprecedented international mistrust," Brzezinski said. "As a result, we are not as safe as we should be here at home."

He said the war has turned Iraq into a training ground for terrorists and noted that Osama bin Laden, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, has not been captured. "The violence in Iraq continues at increasing rates and American casualties continue to mount," Brzezinski said.

THE RIGHT WING'S FILTHY USE OF RELIGION

I'm weary of right-wing "Christians" claiming they're persecuted in the United States. Let them read some history about real persecution and it becomes obvious they haven't had it too bad. In fact, they are the ones doing the persecuting. They are the ones trying to ram their version of "truth" down the throats of everyone else. In this column E. J. Dionne talks about the travails of Congressman David Obey in addressing the persecution by right-wing Christians at the Air Force Academy. This column is at www.washingtonpost.com:

Obey rose to his feet and demanded that Hostettler's last words be stricken from the record, which they eventually were. "If Jesus is watching what's happening on the floor of the House of Representatives, with people behaving in such a blasphemous fashion," Obey said this week, "well, I am reminded of that passage, 'Jesus wept.' " Obey said that when he first came to Congress, "there would have been universal condemnation of Hostettler by both parties." In this case, Obey said he was approached afterward by a single sympathetic Republican. Obey was comforted that Jewish House members "appreciated that a Christian would speak out."

OUR PRIORITIES ARE OUT OF WHACK

President Dwight Eisenhower once observed that military spending was the most wasteful spending of all because it took away things like housing, education, health care, and decent lives for the American people. He warned about the military-industrial complex. When you look at the situation in Iraq you grieve for the U.S. military personnel who have been killed or maimed, you grieve for the innocent Iraqis killed and wounded, and you grieve for the kind of society we could have in the United States if our priorities made sense. Charles Reese has some thoughts at www.antiwar.com:

I cannot think of any instance in which the federal government has been willing to spend $1 billion a week and 1,700 lives just to improve conditions in any one of the 50 states. Yet that is exactly what it is doing in Iraq, presumably for no other reason than to bring the blessings of liberty to a people we have bombed, starved, impoverished and vilified for 14 years.

Naturally, the democracy bit is a fallback excuse after the original justification for launching a preemptive war was proven false. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no nuclear program. There were no ties to al-Qaeda. There was no threat to the United States, imminent or otherwise.